Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Providing a framework for selecting the appropriate method of technology

acquisition considering uncertainty in hierarchical group decision-making:
Case Study: Interactive television technology
Jalil Heidary Dahooie a, *, Ali Reza Qorbani b, Tugrul Daim c, *
a
Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Jalal Al-e-Ahmad Ave., Nasr bridge, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Information Technology Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Iran
c
Department of Engineering and Technology Management, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The technology changes and developments in the world are very rapid and has led many countries and orga­
Technology acquisition nizations to try to keep up with them through acquisition of technology. Choosing the right method as one of the
Interactive television steps in the technology transfer (TT) process has a significant impact on the successful implementation of
Fuzzy group hierarchical best-worst method
technology acquisition (TA). The purpose of this study is to select the most appropriate method of acquiring
ILP model
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.

1. Introduction especially from developed countries to developing countries (Harris and

In recent decades, the role of technology in achieving competitive
advantage has been widely recognized. On the other hand, it is rare to
find a company that acquires all the technologies it needs through
development of internal technology (Cho and Yu, 2000). This has led
many companies to adopt alternative approaches to acquiring technol­
ogy through collaborative development or purchasing from external
developers (Cetindamar et al., 2016). Recognition of the importance of
technology as a factor in achieving competitive advantage has caused
the processes related to TT to be considered by management scholars,
practitioners, and consultants both at home and within organizations
(Buono, n.d.). The transfer of technology is an important issue,
Harris, n.d.; Kumar et al., 2015; Mehralian et al., 2019); because it is a
tool for economic development, social development, improving quality
of life, and even the quality of culture and value systems (Reisman,
2005). On the other hand, the proper choice of technology sourcing
strategies in companies is very effective on their performance and
competitiveness (Bonesso et al., 2011). Therefore, in recent discussions,
why and how to acquire the required technology has been examined as a
major problem in the field of strategic management of the organization
(Ma and Hung, n.d.).
TT, due to its multifaceted and multidisciplinary nature (Reisman,
2005), has a dynamic process for complex and continuous human in­
teractions at the individual-to-individual, group-to-group and

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: Heidaryd@ut.ac.ir (J. Heidary Dahooie), ali.reza.qorbani@alumni.ut.ac.ir (A.R. Qorbani), ji2td@pdx.edu (T. Daim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120760
Received 20 December 2020; Received in revised form 13 March 2021; Accepted 16 March 2021
Available online 25 March 2021
0040-1625/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J. Heidary Dahooie et al.
organization-to-organization levels (Buono, n.d.). Hence, it is a very
complex process to transfer the technology from its source for com­
mercial use (Chang and Chen, n.d.; Kumar et al., 2015; Mehralian et al.,
2019; Silva et al., n.d.; Spann et al., n.d.; Wahab et al., 2011) and pro­
portionally, it is very difficult to measure its effectiveness. For this
reason, various models have been proposed, including conceptual pro­
cess models, mathematical decision-making models, economic benefit
models, communication-based models, strategic marketing models, and
integrative models which combine TT, new product development, and
new investment development (Spann et al., n.d.). Clearly, the choice of
the appropriate method of TT, as one of the main elements of the or­
ganization’s strategy, has a great impact on the success of the TA process
(Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Ford, 1988; Hung and Tang, 2008; Khalil, n.
d.). Selecting and investing in the field of technology have the potential
for competitive advantage and identifying the right approach to
acquiring it requires choosing the right alternative from a variety of
technology alternatives, considering multiple economic, technological,
and social criteria in a complex environment (Ma and Hung, n.d.).
According to the features mentioned, in recent years, MCDM models
have been considered by researchers to select the appropriate method of
TA (Chang and Chen, n.d.; Ghazinoory et al., n.d.; Kumar et al., 2015;
Lai and Tsai, 2009; A. H. I. Lee et al., n.d.; S. Lee et al., n.d., n.d.; Ma and
Hung, n.d.). The special features of this type of decision-making has
added to the complexity of the process. These features include the need
to obtain the opinions of experts in various fields and to involve the
group participation of all decision-makers; the high number of criteria
and the need to observe hierarchical structures in order to reduce in­
compatibility in the decision-making process and finally the need to pay
attention to the inherent uncertainty in the data gathering process in
order to assess the appropriateness between different methods of TA and
the studied features and make the final decision. The emergence of this
type of feature and the need to simultaneous attention to all of them
have increased the difficulty of the process of selecting the appropriate
method of TA for organizations (Ma and Hung, n.d.; Mehralian et al.,
2019).
MADM methods are considered as one of the most popular issues in
the field of decision theory (Kahraman et al., 2015). Since 1968, when
the SAW method was introduced as the first MADM method (Mac­
Crimmon, n.d.), a wide range of MADM methods including TOPSIS
(Hwang et al., 1993), ELECTRE (Liao et al., 2018), MULTIMOORA
(Fattahi and Khalilzadeh, 2018), ARAS (Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018),
COPRAS (Zheng et al., 2018), WASPAS (“WASPAS and TOPSIS based
interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM method for a selection of a car sharing
station,” n.d.), VIKOR (“WASPAS and TOPSIS based interval type-2
fuzzy MCDM method for a selection of a car sharing station,” n.d.),
GRA (Ebrahimi and Rahmani, 2019) and MABAC (Liang et al., 2019)
have been developed. These methods are employed for various pur­
poses, such as weighting criteria (Brugha, 1998) and ranking alterna­
tives (Marttunen et al., 2017). As Mousavi-Nasab (2017)
(Mousavi-Nasab and Sotoudeh-Anvari, 2017) has pointed out, each of
these methods has distinguishing advantages and qualities and may
produce different results when is applied to a given MADM problem.
Therefore, it is hard to say that a method is better than the others (Mela
et al., 2012) and choosing the most appropriate method for a given
problem is a serious challenge for decision-makers (Sun and Li, 2010).
Hence, the simultaneous use of MADM methods and the aggregation of
their results is a very effective approach to achieve a robust consensus
(Akhavan et al., 2015; Banihabib et al., 2017a, 2017b; Barak and
Dahooei, 2018; Barak and Javanmard, 2020; Chitsaz and Banihabib,
2015; Ghadikolaei et al., 2014; Hussain et al., 2020; Jahan et al., n.d.;
Kaur et al., 2016; Serrai et al., 2019, 2017; Shahrasbi et al., 2017; Tayal
et al., 2017; Varmazyar et al., 2016). In this respect, some studies try to
apply the combination of different MADM methods with a group of
approaches such as Borda-Kendall (BAK) method (Contreras, n.d.;
Fields et al., 2013; Tayal et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2005), the Copeland
method (Banihabib et al., 2017b; Varmazyar et al., 2016), the utility
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760
interval method (Barak and Dahooei, 2018; Varmazyar et al., 2016;
Wang et al., 2005), the linear programming (LP) model (Jahan et al., n.
d.; Shahrasbi et al., 2017) and the ILP model (Kaur et al., 2016; Tayal
et al., 2017) and find it as a more efficient technique to enhance the
precision of the final decision. In this study, Integer Linear Program
(ILP) model proposed by (Kaur et al., 2016) was used as a systematic and
logical scientific procedure that can help decision-makers to achieve the
optimum ranking of alternatives.
According to the above, this research tries to provide a hybrid
framework based on MADM methods in order to select the appropriate
method of TA. A framework which on the one hand, allows simultaneous
attention to all the above features and on the other hand is appropriate
to the conditions under study. For this purpose, first, through the liter­
ature review, the list of criteria and alternatives has been prepared and
the fuzzy Delphi technique has been used to finalize the list of criteria
and alternatives. In the following, the weights of criteria have been
determined using the developed Fuzzy G-HBWM and the alternatives
has been evaluated by the expert group in order to form a decision
matrix. Then, six widely used decision-making methods, including
ARAS-F, fuzzy TOPSIS, fuzzy VIKOR, fuzzy WASPAS, fuzzy MABAC, and
fuzzy SAW, have been used to rank the alternatives. Finally, using the
ILP, the rankings have been aggregated and finalized. As can be seen, the
set of fuzzy triangular numbers is used in this study in order to better
match the decision-making model with the real problems of life and to
overcome the ambiguity caused by the decision-making process, when
ambiguities and problems lead to the difficulty of the decision-making
process (Bellman and Zadeh, n.d.; Ribeiro, 1996; Edmundas Kazi­
mieras Zavadskas et al., n.d.). In addition, because decisions are made by
more than one person, a group decision-making method has been used in
this research considering the differences in the individual goals of the
decision-makers as well as the fact that each of them has access to
different information based on their decisions (Kahraman et al., 2003).
The proposed framework has been used to select the appropriate
method of interactive television TA in Iran. Interactive TV technology in
Iran, like other developing countries, is considered an emerging tech­
nology. This has led the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and other
major telecommunications companies to seek to acquire this technology
in order to improve its competitive advantage.
In Section 2, the literature review and the necessity of using MADM
for evaluating the acquisition methods of interactive television tech­
nology are discussed. Section 3 deals with the research method and
Section 4 presents the case study and the results of the calculations.
Finally, in Section 5, the research is concluded.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Research background
Now is the age of rapid technological change that has shortened
product life cycles and intensified trade competition (Lai and Tsai,
2009). TA, which is still one of the company’s most popular growth
strategies, is one way to keep up with the latest trends of accelerated
technology (Ma and Hung, n.d.). The term “technology” does not simply
mean an "object (machine or equipment)" but can be defined as an
approach that uses scientific guidelines to solve practical problems
(Harris and Harris, n.d.). Therefore, TA is a programmed, selected,
centralized process of new technology introduction through know-how,
hardware, software, design, and manufacturing capabilities to improve
long-term performance and competitiveness that brings the expected
economic benefits to new users (Cowan and Daim, 2011; Hung and
Tang, 2008).
In general, the acquisition of technology can be (1) in the form of
internal development through research and development or (2) with the
help of external resources through strategic alliances, participatory
research, and development, technological privileges, or minority in­
vestments in other companies and (3) in the form of purchase
J. Heidary Dahooie et al.
Table 1
Literature review on Technology Acquisition Moods (Alternatives).
TA method
Internal development (Afuah, 1998; Cho and Yu, 2000; Ford, 1988; Roberts and Berry,
1985; Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Zhao et al., 2005)
Joint venture (Afuah, 1998; Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Ford, 1988; Hung and Tang,
2008; Khalil, n.d.; Meyer-Stamer, 1990; Radosevic, 1999; Roberts and Berry, 1985;
Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Tsai et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2005)
Contractual R&D (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Ford, 1988; Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Zhao
et al., 2005)
Licensing (Afuah, 1998; Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Ford, 1988; Hung and Tang, 2008;
Meyer-Stamer, 1990; Radosevic, 1999; Roberts and Berry, 1985; Tidd and Bessant,
2009; Tsai et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2005)
Direct purchases (Cho and Yu, 2000; Ford, 1988; Zhao et al., 2005)
Training & Education (Meyer-Stamer, 1990)
Merger (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998)
Joint R&D (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Cho and Yu, 2000; Hung and Tang, 2008; Tsai
et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2005)
Alliance (Afuah, 1998; Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Radosevic, 1999; Zhao et al., 2005)
Consortium (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Khalil, n.d.; Tidd and Bessant, 2009)
Networking (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Zhao et al., 2005)
Outsourcing (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998)
Patent Purchase (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998)
Acquisition (Afuah, 1998; Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Roberts and Berry, 1985; Zhao
et al., 2005)
Internal Ventures (Afuah, 1998; Roberts and Berry, 1985)
Venture Capital (Afuah, 1998; Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Roberts and Berry, 1985)
Franchise (Khalil, n.d.; Meyer-Stamer, 1990)
Turn key project (Khalil, n.d.; Meyer-Stamer, 1990)
Foreign direct investment (Khalil, n.d.; Meyer-Stamer, 1990; Radosevic, 1999)
Imports of goods (Radosevic, 1999)
Subcontracting (Meyer-Stamer, 1990; Radosevic, 1999)
Export (Radosevic, 1999)
Transfer by people (Radosevic, 1999)
Educational acquisition (Afuah, 1998; Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Roberts and Berry,
1985)
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760
Definition
In this method, the company uses internal resources (conducting research and
development activities) as a basis for creating a new business.
In this method, two or more companies share their technological power, knowledge and
resources by creating a common business unit to develop a specific technology.
In this method, the company provides the financial resources needed by the university,
research institute, or a small innovative company to conduct exploratory research in order
to take advantage of opportunities or innovative ideas.
It is a method in which the recipient organization receives all or part of the technology
rights of another organization (technology supplier) in return for payment or providing
service.
In this method, the final product or part of it is produced by others.
This method includes two methods of (1) education in which the employees of the
recipient company have been transferred inside or outside the country to study in
different educational stages under the supervision of technology provider and receive
valid scientific degrees and (2) training in which the technology recipient company holds
short-term and long-term applied courses required by the provider company or under its
supervision.
In this method, a new company is created by merging two or more companies with the
aim of sharing their different technological capabilities.
In this method, companies do joint research and development on specific technology
without buying each other’s shares.
It is a method in which a company shares its technological capability with other
companies in short term in order to achieve new technology. This alliance is not limited to
technology, but there are also production and marketing alliances such as procurement
and construction contracts, service contracts, and franchises. In fact, it is a
complementary and developmental method of foreign direct investment.
In this method, several companies and institutions, without a joint stock, make joint
efforts to achieve a common technological goal.
In order to prevent backwardness in a technological field, the company creates a network
of extra-organizational relationships.
In this method, some of the company’s activities are transferred outside the company. In
this way, the transfer of technology or manufacture of technical knowledge occurs.
This method is one of the simplest forms of TT in which the exclusive rights to a patent are
wholly purchased from its owner.
The company has access to the desired technology through buying the technology
recipient company and completely owning it.
In this type of investment method, which is similar to the internal development method,
the company tries to enter distinct markets by setting up separate units in the company or
to develop the products which are completely different from the existing products.
By investing in other companies, it is possible to access technology or technical
knowledge. This investment can be in the form of minority equity shares.
This is a special type of franchise in which the recipient of the technology is continuously
supported by the technology owner.
In this method, the company purchases the technology in the form of a complete project
from the technology owner, during which the initial stages of design, installation, setting
up and exploitation are managed and implemented by the technology provider company.
In this method, the company produces its products abroad or invests part of its resources
there, which is usually applied by multinational companies. In this way, it is possible to
transfer technology to another country.
In this method, we mean the transfer of technology embedded in imported goods,
especially in capital goods, which is from developed countries to developing countries.
In this method, the technology receiver company acts as the contractor of the technology
donor company and produces or assembles the parts of the product. In this way, TT takes
place.
In addition to being a source of demand, foreign markets can be a source of learning
through close relationships with foreign buyers. In this way, the information obtained
from foreign buyers is a valuable resource for vendors who focus on the device and
provide free advice to improve production capability. Thus, they provide information
about international markets, market segmentation, product features and appropriate
production methods.
In this method, TT takes place by researchers and engineers who migrated to developed
countries (the brain drain phenomenon) and returned to their country after a while (the
brain gain phenomenon).
The company hires a technology specialist or acquires a smaller company with the goal of
gaining access to people with technological or managerial competencies.
J. Heidary Dahooie et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

Table 2
Literature review on Technology Acquisition (criteria and methods).
Author Weighting method Selection method Main criteria Sub-criteria

Moradian et al., n. Subjective method group TOPSIS - Ability to define content of cooperation, Investment level,
d. Ownership level of the company, Speed of access to technology,
Risk level, Level of technology acquisition, Level of
accompanying with technology changes
Chang and Chen, directly evaluate importance Hierarchical - Technological availability, Market potential, Policy support,
n.d. weight of each criterion by use of structure analysis Management ability
triangular fuzzy numbers
Chehrehpak et al. AHP AHP - Level of Technology Risk, Investment Rate, Skills of Human
(2012) Resources, Training and empowerment of resource, Technology
Type, Competitiveness
Hung and Tang - patent analysis and Technological Capability Technological Level, Technological Innovation, R&D activity
(2008) Logit Regression
Size of Firms Firm size
Previous Experience Experiences in licensing, Experiences in cooperative R&D,
Experiences in joint venture
Lee et al. (2009) ANP ANP Capability Technological position, R&D resources, R&D manpower, R&D
experience, Firm size, Complementary asset
Strategy Fit with business strategy, Fit with technology strategy,
Acquisition urgency, Importance to a firm,
Technology Technology life cycle, Development cost, Technological
relatedness, Easiness to imitate
Market Commercial uncertainty, Market size, Competitive intensity
Environment Appropriability regime, Availability of external source, Quality of
external technology, Dynamism
Cho and Yu (2000) - ANOVA Firm Technical position, Research manpower, R&D experience,
Historical pattern of the choice of mode
Technology Level of technology, Technology development stage, Developing
cost, Need for standardization, Possibility of commercial success
External environment Extent of competition, Appropriability regime, Government
support system
Chiesa and - - The objective of the -
Manzini (1998) collaboration
The content of the Definition of the content, Firms familiarity with the content of
collaboration collaboration, Relevance for the firms competitive advantage,
Technology life cycle, Level of risk, Appropriability of the
innovation, Phase of the innovation process, Level of assets
specialization, Divisibility of assets
The typology of partners Vertical vs. horizontal collaborations, Cultural differences,
involved Relative bargaining power between partners
Chung et al. Grey theory with the AHP Grey theory with External environment Government policy, Market competition, Technology level
(2009) approach the AHP approach
Internal environment Firm size, Technological capability, New product strategy
Technological Technology relevance, Technology maturity,
characteristics
Lai and Tsai Fuzzy AHP Fuzzy AHP Industrial feature Market Scale, Product life cycle, Government
(2009)
Organizational feature Size, Culture, Experience, Age, R&D
Personnel feature Attitude, Education, Authority, Communication
Technological feature Complexity, Codification, Diffusion
Madu (1989) - - - Needs and objectives, Capabilities, Education, training, research
and development, Identification and implementation of
appropriate technology, Management process, The role of public
policy, Research and Development, Structural factors (Cultural
value system)
Hemmert (2004) - Delphi R&D personnel Recruitment conditions for R&D personnel, Recruitment
potential through R&D collaboration with universities, Cost of
R&D personnel, Lay-off conditions for R&D personnel, General
education level of R&D personnel, Professional skills of R&D
personnel, Spatial mobility of R&D personnel, Networking of
R&D personnel with other firms, Networking of R&D personnel
with research institutions
External knowledge Business ties with supplier firms, Business ties with customer
firms, Business ties with competitors and other firms, Spatial
proximity to other firms, Technological level of supplier firms,
Technological level of customer firms, Technological level of
competitors and other firms, Potential for information exchange
at external conferences, Access to external technological
databases and publications, Conditions for R&D collaboration
with non-uni v. research institutions, Conditions for R&D
collaboration with univ. research institutions, Spatial proximity
to research institutions, Technological level of non-university
research institutions, Technological level of university research
institutions

(continued on next page)

4
J. Heidary Dahooie et al.
Table 2 (continued )
Author Weighting method Selection method Main criteria
Political, legal, and
administrative
environment
Internal organization
Mohamed et al. - - Technology transfer
(2012) support
Technology transfer
infrastructure
Technology transfer
environment
Technology transfer
learning capability
Ghazinoory et al. directly evaluate importance PROMETHEE Existing infrastructure
(2013) weight of each criterion
Effectiveness of technology
on quality of life
improvement
Accessibility and
localization of technology
Market forecasting and
economic problems
Hu and Wang - - Technical country selection
(2020)
Technology characteristics
Enterprise characteristics
External environment
characteristics
Kanojia et al. - - - Adequate research &development facilities, University research
(2020)
Jeon et al. (2017) ANP ANP Financial characteristics
Competitive strength
Organization
Strategy
Technology
Product
R&D Capability
Mozaffari et al. FAHP FAHP - Economic attractiveness, Usability, Value creation for customers,
(2012)
Silva et al. (2019) - - Barriers related to the
technology
Barriers related to
interactive context
5
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760
Sub-criteria
Price regulation for final products, Spatial proximity to drug
administration, Impediments to R&D by administrative/legal
barriers, General R&D subsidies, Subsidies for collaborative R&D,
Protection of intellectual property rights, Government demand
for final products
Freedom of the internal exchange of information, Strength of the
internal communication network, Freedom of the external
exchange of information, Strength of the external communication
network
Laws and regulations, Government TT plan, National Oil
Corporation strategy, National Oil Corporation reward system
Information technology, Research and development,
Subcontractors, Training, Standards and quality, Management
practice
Knowledge base, Technology complexity, Communications,
Teamwork
Attitude, Capability, Exposure, Supervision
Existence proficiencies and instructs in Iran, Hardware and
equipment, Existence specialists and experts in Iran
Vastness of technology application, Composition capability with
existence technology, Attractiveness for nongovernmental
organizations
Applying capacity of country, Time between research and market
absorptive, Future of technology, Simplicity of production
process, Possibility of international technical and scientific
cooperation, Possibility of entrance to supply chain of products
Research investment, Investment in production stage, Production
price
-
Technology complexity, Technology age
Firm age, Firm size, Firm nature, Firm absorptive capacity
Industry, Location, Per capita GDP of the province where the firm
is located, Innovation policy
policy, Interdisciplinary research, Strengthening government
funding schemes/programs, Capabilities of university
researchers, Open innovation, Robust intellectual property rights,
Competitive edge of the technology, University intellectual
property rights policy, Proactive laws, Fiscal incentives,
Geographical location, Advance & easy manufacturing process,
Capabilities of technology transfer office, Appropriate technology
transfer mechanism, Prior business experience, Absorption
capacity, Huge market size, Product meeting end consumer need,
Better quality and cost effectiveness, Techno-economic
feasibility, Post transfer support, Marketing capability, Robust
financial condition, Effective communication, Functional
prototype, University industry linkage, Enterprise infrastructures,
Mission & vision of the university, Easily accessible finance,
Organization culture, Top management support and experience,
Low interest rate of debt repayment, Leveraging university
resources
Contribution to profitability, Diversification of risk, Gross margin
stability
Market share, Distribution set-up, Production line
Firm size, Labour environment, Organisational integration,
Cultural match
Strategic fit with business, Technological relevance to strategy,
Speed to run, Geographical advantage,
Technological position, Possibility of commercial success,
Developing cost, Technology development stage
Product performance, Product quality, Imitability
Patent, Research manpower, R&D experience, Employee
retention
Flexibility, Risk, Interdependency, Solution creation, Technology
life cycle, Cost, Complexity, Easy to use, Time to access, Impact
on employment, Environmental benefits, Innovation, Strategic
attractiveness, ROI, Income creation, Political effect, cultural
effect, Technical knowledge and learning, Compatibility, Current
ability, Exclusive, Our situation in technology
Complexity of technology related to knowledge embedded, to the
compositions and to the complex operations
Inefficient cooperation between donor and recipient sources,
Insufficient communication and language, Geographical location,
(continued on next page)
J. Heidary Dahooie et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

Table 2 (continued )
Author Weighting method Selection method Main criteria Sub-criteria

Inadequate physical and structural conditions, Financial

investments, Uncertainties with the application of technology
Tsai et al. (2018) - - Technological capabilities R&D effort, Quality of innovation, Complementary
manufacturing capability, Technological similarity
Marketing capabilities Branding, reputation, and channel advantages
construct
Environmental risk Cultural differences, Legal system
construct
Ortiz-Gallardo - - Contextual issues Acquiring firm characteristics, Project characteristics,
et al. (2013) Competitive environment, Type of partner
Technology uncertainty Technology dynamism of industry, Technology characteristics
(novelty, maturity and complexity)
Strategic alignment Incentive alignment, Motivations, Importance of the project,
Partners’ growth strategy, Management of IPR
Structural match Resources in exchange, Partner identification and selection,
Partner competence
Coordination capability Development team’s effectiveness, Trust, Project management,
Partners’ experience in collaborations, Management of
collaborations, Inter-organisational interaction, Clear goals

(acquisition from other companies) (Cetindamar et al., 2016; Chiesa and been proposed for the acquisition of technology, the list of which is
Manzini, 1998; Cho and Yu, 2000; Ford, 1988; Yoshikawa, 2003; Zhao shown in Table 1.
et al., 2005). Based on the background review, various methods have Since the use of any of the methods mentioned in Table 1 requires

Fig. 1. Methodology process.

6
J. Heidary Dahooie et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

Table 3
Literature review on BWM extended.
Authors Year Group Hierarchical Uncertainty Approach Specific problem
decision- structure condition
making

(Mou et al., 2016)
(Guo and Zhao, 2017)
(Hafezalkotob and Hafezalkotob,
2017)
(Safarzadeh et al., 2018)
(“Modification of the Best–Worst
and MABAC methods: A novel
approach based on interval-
valued fuzzy-rough numbers,” n.
d.)
(Aboutorab et al., 2018)
(Tabatabaei et al., 2019b)
(Mohammadi and Rezaei, 2019)
(Khanmohammadi et al., 2019)
(“A new hybrid model for quality
assessment of scientific
conferences based on Rough
BWM and SERVQUAL,” n.d.)
(Ijadi Maghsoodi et al., 2019)
(Tabatabaei et al., 2019a)
(Liao et al., 2019)
(Li et al., 2019)
(Chen et al., 2020)
(Hafezalkotob et al., n.d.)
(Fei et al., 2020)
2016 ✓ - ✓ Intuitionistic fuzzy multiplicative Evaluation of the severity of
best-worst method pulmonary emphysema
2017 - - ✓ Fuzzy best-worst method based on (1) Transportation: select an optimal
triangular fuzzy numbers. transportation mode to deliver the
products to a market, (2) Select a high
cost-performance car, (3) Supplier
development
2017 ✓ - ✓ Combination of individual and (1) Scientific journal: policy-making
group decisions based on fuzzy process, (2) Investment decision
best-worst method based on process of innovation projects
triangular fuzzy numbers
2018 ✓ - - Group decision-making best–worst Piping selection method
method
2018 - - ✓ Interval-valued fuzzy-rough Selection of firefighting helicopters
numbers (IVFRN) best–worst
method
2018 - - ✓ Z-number extension of best–worst Supplier development
method
2019 ✓ - - Group decision-making best–worst (1) Evaluation of R&D Unit, (2)
method Evaluation of Green Supply Chain
2019 ✓ ✓ - Bayesian best-worst method Selection of the mobile phone
2019 - - ✓ Integrating logarithmic fuzzy Determine Strategy Canvas for
preference programming (LFPP) manufacturing motorcycle
nonlinear programming model
into the best–worst method
2019 ✓ - ✓ Rough BWM‑SERVQUAL model Determining the quality of the
scientific conference
2019 ✓ ✓ ✓ Hierarchical fuzzy group decision- Selection of loud-speaker design
making based on information prototype
axioms and best–worst method
2019 - ✓ - Hierarchical best-worst method (1) Identify important factors of
technological innovations in Micro-
Small and Medium Enterprises, (2)
supplier selection in Micro-Small and
Medium Enterprises
2019 - - ✓ Hesitant fuzzy linguistic best worst Evaluation of hospital performance
method
2019 - - ✓ Dominance degree of probabilistic Investment in potential industry
hesitant fuzzy elements (PHFEs)
and best-worst method
2020 - - ✓ Rough-fuzzy best-worst method Evaluate user activity-oriented service
requirement for smart product service
system
2020 ✓ - ✓ Group decision-making interval Selection of hybrid vehicle engine
best–worst method
2020 - - ✓ Evidential best-worst method Evaluation hospital service quality

attention to the conditions and limitations of the relevant method (Cho
and Yu, 2000), researchers in this scientific field (Baines, 2004; Khalil, n.
d.; Ortiz-Gallardo et al., 2013), policymakers in the public, private and
non-profit sectors, and decision-makers at company, institute, associa­
tion, regional and national level have considered the evaluation of
various references and methods of acquisition as one of the most
important steps in the process of TT (Reisman, 2005). The need to pay
simultaneous attention to different and sometimes inconsistent condi­
tions and criteria has made the issue of choosing the right method of TA
an important challenge in the MCDM process (Chang and Chen, n.d.;
Chehrehpak et al., 2012; Chung et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2009; Mohamed
et al., n.d.; Moradian et al., n.d.). Table 2 provides a list of the most
important criteria influencing this decision. As can be seen, due to the
wide range of criteria that should be considered in this decision, in
addition to the field of TA, some articles related to technology selection,
strategic partner selection, etc. have also been reviewed.
As the table above shows, the use of MADM techniques to select the
appropriate TT method has been of interest to researchers. This is
because of the influence of various factors on the choice of appropriate
acquisition method (Ghazinoory et al., n.d.; Lai and Tsai, 2009; Lee
et al., 2009), the complexity of the TT process (Chang and Chen, n.d.;
Ghazinoory et al., n.d.; Mozaffari et al., 2012), and resource constraints
(Chung et al., 2009).
As the table above shows, so far, several decision-making methods
have been used in this area. However, it was noted earlier that
combining decision-making methods can lead to more robust results. On
the other hand, a structured approach that simultaneously considers
group decision-making, hierarchical structure of criteria, and

7
J. Heidary Dahooie et al.
uncertainty can add to the effectiveness of the decision-making process.
2.2. Research methods
The important thing about utilizing MADM methods is that each of
these methods has distinctive features and qualities, and may exhibit
different results on the same problem (Mousavi-Nasab and Sotoude­
h-Anvari, 2017). Therefore, one method cannot be considered better
than the others (Mela et al., 2012), and choosing the most appropriate
method is an important challenge for decision-makers (Barak and
Dahooei, 2018). To solve this challenge and increase the robustness of
the results (Akhavan et al., 2015), many researchers have suggested
using a combination of different MADM methods (Varmazyar et al.,
2016). However, the methods used so far to aggregate the results of
MADM methods have some shortcomings that the authors of this paper
attempted to overcome these challenges.
The aim of this study is to provide a framework for evaluating the
methods of TA and selecting the most appropriate method. As
mentioned in the previous sections, for reasons such as the impact of
various factors on the choice of the appropriate method of acquisition
(Ghazinoory et al., n.d.; Lai and Tsai, 2009; Lee et al., 2009), the
complexity of the TT process (Chang and Chen, n.d.; Ghazinoory et al., n.
d.; Mozaffari et al., 2012), and the limited resources (Chung et al.,
2009), MADM methods have been used in the formation of this frame­
work. Also, due to the ambiguity and uncertainty in the data obtained
from the experiences and judgments of decision-makers (Chang and
Chen, n.d.; Lai and Tsai, 2009; Mozaffari et al., 2012) as well as data
insufficiency (Chung et al., 2009), fuzzy data has been used to make
pairwise comparisons. The use of fuzzy logic can overcome the uncer­
tainty of ambiguities arising from qualitative human judgments and
incomplete preferences relations (Bellman and Zadeh, n.d.; Ribeiro,
1996; Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas et al., n.d.). Due to the hierar­
chical nature of the criteria and the need to use multi-expert opinions in
the decision-making process (Kahraman et al., 2003), the developed
approach will be a group hierarchical method.
Fig. 1 summarizes the research executive process. According to the
flowchart, in the background review phase, the initial list of alternatives
(TA methods) and their assessment criteria are provided by reviewing
the literature. In the assessment phase, after the formation of the rele­
vant group of experts, the relevant list is provided to the members of the
group in the form of a questionnaire in order to check and finalize the
alternatives and criteria. In this step, the fuzzy Delphi method is used to
form the final list of criteria and sub-criteria as well as to finalize the list
of alternatives.
Depending on the type of problem, the differences between the case
study characteristics and the type of methods, methods based on pair­
wise comparisons should be used in order to calculate the weights of the
criteria and sub-criteria and also to calculate the scores of the decision
table. Therefore, in this study, an improved Fuzzy G-HBWM has been
used. In this method, pairwise comparisons are performed based on the
best and worst criteria (essential reference comparisons) and then the
alternatives are ranked according to the criteria (Rezaei, 2015).
Accordingly, in the next phase, to calculate the weights of criteria
and sub-criteria, the improved method of fuzzy group hierarchical best-
worst has been used. For this purpose, first the weight of the experts was
calculated and then based on the proposed framework, the weight of
each of the criteria and sub-criteria was determined with the help of the
experts. Since the performance of TA methods should be evaluated by
experts according to each of the criteria and sub-criteria, methods were
compared pairwise with each other according to different sub-criteria
8
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760
again using the improved fuzzy group hierarchical best-worst method.
Finally, the scores required to form the decision table were calculated.
In the ranking phase, the data should be ranked using the decision
table data and considering the weights of the criteria and sub-criteria as
the main inputs. As mentioned earlier, using a combined approach based
on more than one ranking method and aggregating their results will
increase the robustness of the final results, especially when the alter­
natives are inherently close to each other or the number of alternatives
increases (Varmazyar et al., 2016; Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas
et al., n.d.). Accordingly, in the first step of the ranking phase, different
methods of TA were prioritized using six popular and widely used
methods including fuzzy TOPSIS, ARAS-F, fuzzy VIKOR, fuzzy SAW,
fuzzy WASPAS and fuzzy MABAC. Finally, an integer linear program­
ming (ILP) approach was used to aggregate their results to select the best
TA method.
The proposed framework was used to select the appropriate method
of acquiring interactive TV technology.
The details of the methods used are described below.
2.2.1. Fuzzy Delphi method
Fuzzy Delphi method, which was used in 1950 to predict technology,
developed rapidly in various fields (Mullen, 2003). Because the tradi­
tional Delphi method has disadvantages such as low convergence of
expert opinions, high executive costs, and possibility of filtering the
opinions of certain experts by a person from the provider organization,
Murray et al. (1985) used fuzzy theory to solve the mentioned problems
(Dahooie et al., 2018; Kuo and Chen, 2008). Since a variety of tech­
niques have been proposed for fuzzy Delphi method calculations, this
study uses the approach provided by Hsu & Yang (2000) and Kuo and
Chen (2008), in which the highest and lowest values are defined as fuzzy
numbers based on expert opinions, and the geometric mean is used as
the membership degree for triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) in order to
avoid some input values (Dahooie et al., 2018). Each fuzzy number (TA)
is defined as follows:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
∏ n
TA = (LA , MA , UA ), LA = min(XAi ), UA = max(XAi ), MA = n XAi (1)
i=1
Where, XAi is the suggested value of the ith decision-maker in terms of the
important factor A; (i = 1, 2…). LA , UA , and MA are the lower limit,
higher limit, and geometric mean values of A, respectively. In the next
step, the defuzzification process is done through the following model
(Dahooie et al., 2018):
DFk =
(Uk − Lk ) + (Mk − Lk )
+ Lk (2)
3
Where k represents the criterion number and Lk , Uk and Mk represent the
lower limit, higher limit and geometric mean values for the important
factor k.
The last step is to set the threshold in order to accept or reject the
criterion.
2.2.2. Fuzzy group hierarchical best-worst method (Fuzzy G-HBWM)
The best-worst method is one of the new methods based on pairwise
comparisons in the field of multi-criteria decision making, which was
presented by Rezaei (2015). In general, in this method, pairwise com­
parisons are made based on the best and worst criterion, and then the
alternatives are ranked according to the criteria (Rezaei, 2015). Thus,
this method has been able to become one of the most widely used
methods in this field (Alsalem et al., 2018; Mi et al., 2019) by
J. Heidary Dahooie et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

overcoming the limitations of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) integrated fuzzy group-hierarchical model (based on triangular fuzzy
method, which is one of the popular methods of multi-criteria decision numbers), which is appropriate to the conditions of our problem, has not
making (Mi et al., 2019). In this method, only reference comparisons are yet been developed. Therefore, in this research, an improved approach
necessary, which leads to more structured pairwise comparisons and of the fuzzy group-hierarchical best-worst method has been used.
ultimately results with high consistency and reliability (Mi et al., 2019; Regarding group decision making in this research, the third approach
Rezaei et al., 2016). Therefore, the number of pairwise comparisons has has been used. In this approach, the weight of the experts is considered
been reduced to 2n − 3 compared to the AHP method, in which as the input of the aggregated model, presented by the experts.
n(n − 1)/2 comparisons are performed (Rezaei, 2015). This has caused The following steps describe this improved method:
the complexity of the best-worst growth method to increase linearly
with increasing number of criteria, while it increases exponentially in 1 Assessing the importance degree of the expert group by the senior
the AHP method (Mi et al., 2019). In addition, this method uses only the manager:
integer values, which makes it easier and more understandable to use a Identifying the most important (EB ) and the least important (EW )
than the methods that use fractional values (Rezaei, 2015). expert based on their abilities and experiences.
Similarly Hierarchical Decision Modeling (HDM) which uses con­ b Performing pairwise comparisons among the most important
stant sum approach in pairwise comparisons is used as an alternative to expert and other experts
AHP (Lavoie et al. 2020, Khalifa and Daim, 2021; Garces et al (2021) ( )
and Estep et al (2021). However it has the similar limitation in terms of ̃λ = ̃
A B aλB1 , ̃
aλB2 , …, ̃
aλBk (3)
comparisons. Though chainwise comparisons may help reduce the
number of comparisons (Iskin and Daim, 2016)
According to the mentioned characteristics, the best-worst methods
c Performing pairwise comparisons among the least important
has wide applications in various fields such as manufacturing, supplier
expert and other experts
development, supply chain, micro-small and medium enterprises, sup­
( )
plier selection, risk assessment, education, agile development, technol­
Ãλ = ̃ aλ1W , ̃
aλ2W , …, ̃
aλkW (4)
ogy, energy consumption, sharing arrangements, airline industry. W

quality assessment, biology, automotive, eco-industrial parks, perfor­

mance evaluation, banking services, logistics, energy, transportation,
verification, mining, and mathematics (Mi et al., 2019). 2 Identifying the set of criteria and sub-criteria:
As mentioned earlier, depending on the problem conditions of
choosing the TA method, the method used should be able to deal with At this step, the criteria C = {c1 , c2 , …, cn } and sub-criteria Cs =
uncertainty, support the hierarchical structure of criteria and sub- {c1s , c2s , …, cns } finalized by fuzzy Delphi method are provided to the
criteria, and finally provide group decision making. Table 3 lists some expert group in order to make pairwise comparisons.
of the most important extensions of the best-worst method based on
group decision-making dimensions, criteria hierarchical structure, and 1 Choosing the best and worst criteria as well as the best and worst sub-
uncertainty conditions. criteria in the jth main criterion by the group of experts:
As the table above shows, so far, interval-valued multiplicative sets
(Mou et al., 2016), triangular fuzzy numbers (Guo and Zhao, 2017; At this step, the selection of the best criterion CB and the worst cri­
Hafezalkotob and Hafezalkotob, 2017; Ijadi Maghsoodi et al., 2019; terion CW as well as the best sub-criterion CsB and the worst sub-criterion
Khanmohammadi et al., 2019), rough numbers (“A new hybrid model CsW in the jth main criterion is done by the group of experts.
for quality assessment of scientific conferences based on Rough BWM
and SERVQUAL,” n.d.), rough fuzzy numbers (Chen et al., 2020) 1 Performing pairwise comparisons among the best criterion and other
interval-valued rough-fuzzy numbers (“Modification of the Best–Worst criteria
and MABAC methods: A novel approach based on interval-valued fuz­ ( )
zy-rough numbers,” n.d.), z-numbers (Aboutorab et al., 2018), hesitant ̃k = ̃
A B akB1 , ̃
akB1 , …, ̃
akBj (5)
fuzzy linguistic term set (Liao et al., 2019), probabilistic hesitant fuzzy
element (Li et al., 2019), interval numbers (Hafezalkotob et al., n.d.) and
theory of belief functions (BFT) (Fei et al., 2020) have been used to
2 Performing pairwise comparisons among the worst criterion and
indicate uncertainty in the BWM method. From the point of view of
other criteria
hierarchical structure, there are two main approaches; in the first
( )
approach, the weights of the criteria and sub-criteria are obtained ̃k = ̃
A ak1W , ̃
ak2W , …, ̃
akjW (6)
simultaneously and by solving an integrated model (Mohammadi and W

Rezaei, 2019; Tabatabaei et al., 2019a); however, in the second

approach, the weights of the main criteria and sub-criteria are calculated
using separate models, and finally the final weight is obtained by 3 Performing pairwise comparisons among the best sub-criteria and
multiplying them together (Ijadi Maghsoodi et al., 2019). other sub-criteria in the jth main criterion
Finally, three main approaches have been used by researchers from ( )
the point of view of group decision-making. In the first approach, the ̃ks = ̃
A B aks aks
B1 , ̃ aks
B1 , …, ̃Bj (7)
problem is solved separately for each expert, and the results are aggre­
gated using operators such as geometric or arithmetic mean (Chang and
Chen, n.d.; Ramanathan and Ganesh, n.d.). In the second approach, the
4 Performing pairwise comparisons among the worst sub-criteria and
model is integrated for all experts and the weight of the experts is
other sub-criteria in the jth main criterion
calculated during the model (Hafezalkotob and Hafezalkotob, 2017;
( )
Tabatabaei et al., 2019b). The third approach is similar to the second
approach, except that the weight of the experts is considered as the input
̃ks = ̃
A W aks aks
1W , ̃ aks
2W , …, ̃jW (8)
of the aggregated model and is provided by the experts (Safarzadeh
et al., 2018).
Despite numerous developments in the best-worst method, an

9
J. Heidary Dahooie et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

* * *
Calculating the optimal importance of the experts ̃
λk = (̃
λ1 , ̃
λ2 , …, ∑m
(
∑p
)
* min ̃ ̃ ̃
̃
λk ), the optimal weight of the criteria ̃ *j
w = ̃ *1 ,
(w ̃ *2 , …, w
w ̃ *j ), the ξλ + k=1
ξ k + ξ
s=1 ks

optimal weight of sub-criteria ̃ s*

= (w ̃ s*
w
1 , w̃ s*
j2 , …, w ̃ s*
j ) and the global ⃒( λ ) ⃒
s* s* s* s* ⃒ lB , mλB , uλB ⃒
weight of sub-criteria Gw
̃ j = (Gw
̃ 1 , Gw
̃ 2 , …, Gw
̃ j ), which are calcu­ ⃒(
⃒ lλ , mλ , uλ ) − (lBk , mBk , uBk )⃒≤̃
⃒ ξλ , ∀k
lated through the following optimization problem: k k k
⎧
( ) ⎪
∑m ∑p ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒ ( λ ) ⃒
min ̃
ξλ + ̃ξk + ̃
ξks ⎪
⎪ ⃒ lk , mλk , uλk ⃒
⎪ ⃒ ( ) m u ⃒≤̃
k=1 s=1 ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒ λ λ
lW , mW , uW λ
− (l kW , kW , kW ) ⃒ ξλ , ∀k
⎪
⎪
⃒ ⃒ ⎪
⎪
⃒ ⃒ ⎪
⎪
⃒̃ ⃒ ⎪
⎪
⎧ ⃒λB − ̃
a λ ⃒ ̃ ⎪
⎪ ⃒(
⃒ lw , mw , uw ) (
⃒
⎪
⎪ ⃒̃ Bk ⃒ ≤ ξλ , ∀k ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒( B )⃒⃒
⎪
⎪ ⃒ λk ⃒ ⎪
⎪ ⃒ B B
) − l , m , u ̃
Bjk ⃒ ≤ ξk , ∀j, k
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⃒ lw , mw , uw Bjk Bjk
⃒
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ jk jk jk
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒ ⃒ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒ ⃒ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒̃ ⃒ ⎪ ( )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒ λk − ̃λ ⃒
akW ⃒ ≤ ̃
ξλ , ∀k
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒ lw , mw , uw ⃒
⎪
⎪ ⃒̃ ⎪
⎪ ⃒ jk ( )⃒
⎪
⎪ λ
⃒ W ⃒ ⎪
⎪ ⃒( jk jk
) − ljkW , mjkW , ujkW ⃒⃒ ≤ ̃
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⃒ ξk , ∀j, k
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
w
lW , mW , uW w w
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒ ⃒ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒ k ⃒ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⃒ ( ⃒
⎪
⎪
⎪
⃒w̃
⃒ B− ̃
⃒
aBj ⃒⃒ ≤ ̃
k
ξk , ∀j, k
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒ lw , mw , uw ) ( )⃒⃒
⎪
⎪ ⃒w k ⎪
⎪ ⃒( B B B
) − lBjks , mBjks , uBjks ⃒ ≤ ̃
⎪
⎪ ⃒ ̃j ⃒ ⎪
⎪ ⃒ ξks , ∀j, s and k
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⃒ lw , mw , uw ⃒
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ jks jks jks
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒ ⃒ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒ k ⃒ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⃒w
⃒
̃j k
⃒
⃒ ̃ ⎪ ⃒( w
⎪
⎪ w w
)
⃒
⎪ ⃒w − a
̃jW ⃒ ≤ ξk , ∀j, k
⎪
⎪ ⃒ ljks , mjks , ujks ( )⃒
⎪
⎪ k ⎪ ⃒
⎪ ( ⃒≤̃
⎪
⎪ ⃒̃W ⃒ ⎪
⎪ ⃒ w w w
) − l jksW , m jksW , u jksW ⃒ ξks , ∀j, s and k
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ lW , mW , uW
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ (10)
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪ ⃒ ⃒
⎪
⎪ ⃒ ks ⃒ s.t. ∑ m ∑ n ( )(
⎪ ⃒w ⃒ )
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒̃B − ̃ ks ⃒
aBj ⃒ ≤ ̃
ξks , ∀j, s and k ⎪
⎪
⎪ w
̃ = lw
, m w
, u w
lλk , mλk , uλk , ∀j, k
⎪
⎪ ⃒w ks ⎪
⎪
j jk jk jk
⎪
⎪ ̃
⃒ j ⃒ ⎪
⎪ k=1 j=1
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒ ⃒ ⎪
⎪ ∑ m ∑ p ∑ n ( )(
⎪
⎪ ⃒ ks ⃒ ⎪ )
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⃒w
⃒
̃j ⃒
⃒ ̃ (9) ⎪
⎪
⎪ ̃ sj =
w lwjks , mwjks , uwjks lλk , mλk , uλk , ∀j, s and k
⎪
⎨ ⃒w ks
aks
− ̃jW ⃒ ≤ ξks , ∀j, s and k
⎪
⎪
⎪ k=1 s=1 j=1
⃒̃W ⃒ ⎪
⎪
s.t. ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ( )( )
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑m ∑n k ⎪
⎪ G̃ wsj = lwj , mwj , uwj lwjs , mwjs , uwjs , ∀j, s
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ w
̃j = j=1 j
w̃̃
λk , ∀j, k ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
k=1 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑m ∑p ∑n ks
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑m ( )
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ R ̃ λk = 1
⎪
⎪ ̃ sj =
w j=1 j
̃ ̃
w λk , ∀j, s and k ⎪
⎪
⎪ k=1
⎪
⎪ k=1 s=1 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ G̃wsj = w ̃jw̃ sj , ∀j, s
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑m ∑n ( k )
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ R w ̃j = 1
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ k=1 j=1
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑m ( ) ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ R ̃ λk = 1 ⎪
⎪ ∑m ∑p ∑n ( ks )
⎪
⎪ k=1 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ R w ̃j = 1
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ k=1 s=1 j=1
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑m ∑n ( k ) ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
⎪
⎪ R w ̃j = 1
⎪
⎪
⎪ k=1 j=1 lwj ≤ mwj ≤ uwj
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑m ∑p ∑n ( ks ) lwj ≥ 0
⎪
⎪ R w̃j = 1
⎪
⎪ k=1 s=1 j=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 3. Case study
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ lwj ≤ mwj ≤ uwj
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ In the past, television was mostly a linear, one-dimensional medium
⎩
for entertainment, and audiences were confronted with passive receivers
lwj ≥ 0 as well as selection and watch time limitations (Yu et al., 2009).
The audio was packaged for presentation in the 1960s through
Equation (9) can be transformed as follows:
digitalization across IP networks. This event can be seen for television
(Yarali and Cherry, 2005), because we live in a world today that is
surrounded by pervasive digital platforms with broadband networks,
cloud computing, and billions of end-user smart devices (Bharadwaj
et al., 2013).

10
J. Heidary Dahooie et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

Table 4 and market to provide a platform with a multifaceted view for managers.
Sets, parameters, and variables of the proposed method. The product and service committee is responsible for considering
Sets new technology and service in MTN Irancell Company. Therefore 4 ex­
perts based on their level of knowledge and experience were introduced
J Set of criterion
S Set of sub-criterion by this committee, which they were working in the business, technical,
K Set of experts legal, and marketing development departments, respectively.
Indexes In the following, the results of each of the steps taken to evaluate and
j Index of criteria (1, …, n) prioritize the methods of acquiring interactive television technology are
s Index of sub-criteria (1, …, p) described.
k Index of decision-makers (1, …, m)
B Index of best criterion 3.1. Finalization of alternatives and criteria
W Index of worst criterion
λ Index of expert weights
Variables In this research, fuzzy Delphi method has been used in order to make
̃
λB Fuzzy weight of the best expert by senior manager compatible the opinions of experts concerning the determination of final
̃
λW Fuzzy weight of the worst expert by senior manager criteria and alternatives in evaluating the methods of acquiring inter­
̃ Fuzzy weight of kth expert by senior manager
active television technology. For this purpose, after deriving the list of
λk
relevant alternatives, criteria and sub-criteria that are shown in Tables 1
aBk
λ Fuzzy preference of best expert over the expert k by senior manager
and 2, it was provided to the group of experts in the form of a ques­
̃
akW Fuzzy preference of expert k over the worst expert by senior manager
tionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of two sections, the first of which
λ
̃
̃ kB
w Fuzzy weight of the best criterion by kth expert was for assessment of the importance of the criteria extracted from
̃ kW
w Fuzzy weight of the worst criterion by kth expert previous studies, and the second section asked them to suggest other
̃ kj
w Fuzzy weight of criterion j by kth expert criteria that could influence the assessment. After the calculations
k
Fuzzy preference of the best criterion over the criterion j by kth expert
related to fuzzy Delphi method, as shown in Tables 5 and 6, 4 main
aBj
̃
criteria as well as 19 sub-criteria and 7 alternatives were selected to
k
ajW Fuzzy preference of criterion j over the worst criterion by kth expert
perform the calculations related to the weights of the criteria and
̃
̃ ks
w B
Fuzzy weight of the best sub-criterion by kth expert prioritization.
̃ ks
w W
Fuzzy weight of the worst sub-criterion by kth expert In order to shorten the time for research and development and reduce
ks
aBj
̃ Fuzzy preference of the best sub-criterion over the sub-criterion j by kth risks, many enterprises, especially companies, have focused more on
expert acquiring foreign technology (Tsai et al., 2018). Also, in the field of
ks
ajW
̃ Fuzzy preference of sub-criterion j over the worst sub-criterion by kth rapid change technology, in which enterprises alone are not able to keep
expert pace with innovations in all different areas, outsourcing has been
w
̃j Final fuzzy weight of each criterion introduced as a desirable strategy (Sen and Rubenstein, 1990). Acqui­
̃ sj
w Final fuzzy weight of each sub-criterion sition of foreign technology involves a set of activities and decisions
G̃
wj
s
Global fuzzy weight of s th sub-criterion for jth criterion ranging from defining the needs of technology to implementing tech­
R Graded mean integration representation for representing generalized nology in the form of a product or process receiving the technology
fuzzy number (Guo and Zhao, 2017) (Ortiz-Gallardo et al., 2013).
̃ξλ Optimal objective value of model for weight of expert
̃ξk Optimal objective value of model for weight of main criteria 3.2. Weighting the main criteria and sub-criteria
̃ξks Optimal objective value of model for weight of sub-criteria
As mentioned in Section 3-3, this study uses the developed fuzzy
group-hierarchical best-worst method. The initial assessment of the
In general, technologies such as VoIP, video conferencing, and IP group of experts is given in Tables 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
have provided a platform for the emerging technology of interactive In the following, using the steps mentioned in Sections 3-3, final
television (Internet Protocol TV), which provides better functionality weights of the criteria and sub-criteria were calculated, given in
and interaction to the audience (Yarali and Cherry, 2005). Table 12.
Given the rapid growth of technology in the mobile communications
industry, it is important for companies responsible for the development 3.3. Evaluating the alternatives by an expert group
of this industry to decide how to acquire new technologies. One of the
most widely used technologies in this industry is interactive TV tech­ In this step, pairwise comparisons were made using the fuzzy group-
nology. This technology is emerging in developing countries such as hierarchical best-worst method and the score of each of the alternatives
Iran, and large telecommunications companies in these countries are was calculated according to the criteria. The aggregated matrix obtained
looking to acquire the technology and present it to their users in order to from the calculations is given in Table 13.
reach new markets. In this regard, MTN Irancell one of the companies
active in the mobile communications industry, intends to make in­ 3.4. Final ranking of alternatives based on selected methods
vestments in some infrastructure like IPTV to expand its presence in the
Iranian telecoms market. Furthermore, as a 2nd mobile operator in Iran, The ranking calculations have been done in the following using 6
provide IPTV service can help the company to retain customers and gain widely used popular methods including fuzzy TOPSIS, ARAS-F, Fuzzy
more profit. Hence, this company seeks to determine and select the most WASPAS, Fuzzy VIKOR, Fuzzy SAW and Fuzzy MABAC. The results are
appropriate method of acquiring interactive television technology. Since described below separately for each method.
the implementation of each of the methods of acquiring technology for
this organization, like other organizations, is costly, this organization 3.4.1. Results of ARAS-F method
seeks to make effective decisions about how to spend these expenses. The Additive Ratio ASsessment (ARAS) method is one of the new
Therefore, the aim of this study is to increase the decision-making ac­ methods in the field of multi-criteria decision making that was proposed
curacy of this organization managers in order to select the most in 2010 by Zavadskas and Turskis (n.d.). This method has been used in
appropriate method of TA by using and involving criteria such as various fields (Mardani et al., 2018). In this method, the value of the
technological capabilities of the organization, technological features, optimal function determines the complex efficiency of the feasible

11
J. Heidary Dahooie et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

Table 5
Final and localized criteria.
Main criteria Main Sub-criteria Sub- Reference
criteria criteria
code code

Organizational factors C1 The need to access technology
Company culture
The need to own technology
The technological ability of the
firm in the industry
Successful company experience
in a particular TA
Technology factors C2 Technology life cycle
The degree of strategic
importance of technology
Risk level of technology
development or acquisition
The cost of developing or
acquiring technology
Environmental and C3 The level of government support
market factors for intellectual property
Technological innovation rate
in industry
Knowledge spillover in the
industry
Partner or seller factors C4 Multiplicity of cooperation
goals
How to communicate with the
company
Ability to share assets
field of activity
Size/power difference with
partner
The level of specialization of
assets
Differences in culture
C11 (Chung et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2009; Madu, 1989; Moradian et al., n.d.; Mozaffari
et al., 2012; Ortiz-Gallardo et al., 2013)
C12 (Hemmert, 2004; Kanojia et al., 2020; Lai and Tsai, 2009; Madu, 1989)
C13 (Kanojia et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2009; Madu, 1989; Moradian et al., n.d.)
C14 (Chang and Chen, n.d.; Chehrehpak et al., 2012; Cho and Yu, 2000; Ghazinoory
et al., n.d.; Hemmert, 2004; Hu and Wang, 2020; Hung and Tang, 2008; Jeon et al.,
2017; Kanojia et al., 2020; Lai and Tsai, 2009; Lee et al., 2009; Madu, 1989;
Mohamed et al., n.d.; Moradian et al., n.d.; Mozaffari et al., 2012; Ortiz-Gallardo
et al., 2013; Silva et al., n.d.; Tsai et al., 2018)
C15 (Hung and Tang, 2008; Kanojia et al., 2020; Lai and Tsai, 2009)
C21 (Chang and Chen, n.d.; Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Cho and Yu, 2000; Chung et al.,
2009; Ghazinoory et al., n.d.; Hu and Wang, 2020; Jeon et al., 2017; Lai and Tsai,
2009; Lee et al., 2009; Madu, 1989; Mozaffari et al., 2012; Ortiz-Gallardo et al.,
2013)
C22 (Chang and Chen, n.d.; Cho and Yu, 2000; Chung et al., 2009; Jeon et al., 2017;
Kanojia et al., 2020; Lai and Tsai, 2009; Lee et al., 2009; Mozaffari et al., 2012;
Ortiz-Gallardo et al., 2013)
C23 (Chehrehpak et al., 2012; Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Chung et al., 2009; Hu and
Wang, 2020; Jeon et al., 2017; Lai and Tsai, 2009; Lee et al., 2009; Mohamed et al.,
n.d.; Moradian et al., n.d.; Mozaffari et al., 2012; Ortiz-Gallardo et al., 2013; Silva
et al., n.d.)
C24 (Cho and Yu, 2000; Jeon et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2009; Moradian et al., n.d.;
Mozaffari et al., 2012; Silva et al., n.d.)
C31 (Chang and Chen, n.d.; Cho and Yu, 2000; Chung et al., 2009; Hemmert, 2004; Hu
and Wang, 2020; Kanojia et al., 2020; Lai and Tsai, 2009; Lee et al., 2009; Madu,
1989; Mohamed et al., n.d.; Tsai et al., 2018)
C32 (Mozaffari et al., 2012)
C33 (Hemmert, 2004)
C41 (Ghazinoory et al., n.d.; Moradian et al., n.d.)
C42 (Hemmert, 2004; Kanojia et al., 2020)
C43 (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Ortiz-Gallardo et al., 2013)
C44 (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998)
C45 (Hemmert, 2004; Ma and Hung, n.d.)
C46 (Hu and Wang, 2020)
C47 (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Hemmert, 2004; Jeon et al., 2017; Madu, 1989; Silva
et al., n.d.; Tsai et al., 2018)

alternative directly in proportion to the relative effect of the values and Table 6
weights of the criteria in the project (Zavadskas and Turskis, n.d.). Final and localized alternatives.
Therefore, the best alternative is selected according to the criteria and
TA method Code Resource
the final ranking is done by determining the degree of utility of each of
the alternative (Alinezhad and Khalili, 2019). Given that the prioriti­ Joint R&D A1 (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Zhao et al., 2005)
Contractual A2 (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Ford, 1988; Tidd and
zation of alternatives is done through the value of the optimal function,
R&D Bessant, 2009; Zhao et al., 2005)
it is one of the convenient methods for evaluating and ranking decision Venture A3 (Afuah, 1998; Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Roberts and
alternatives (Zavadskas and Turskis, n.d.). Capital Berry, 1985)
Due to the above characteristics, this method has been rapidly Outsourcing A4 (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998)
Patent A5 (Chiesa and Manzini, 1998)
developed and seems to be a good method for solving real life problems
Purchase
(Mardani et al., 2015). In this paper, the ARAS-F method presented by Licensing A6 (Afuah, 1998; Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; Ford, 1988;
Turskis and Zavadskas (2010) was used. The results of this method are Meyer-Stamer, 1990; Radosevic, 1999; Roberts and
shown in Table 14. Berry, 1985; Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Zhao et al., 2005)
Turnkey A7 (Khalil, n.d.; Meyer-Stamer, 1990)
project
3.4.2. Results of fuzzy TOPSIS method
Among the MADM methods, the Technique for Order Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solutionis (TOPSIS) is one of the most practical and solution (For example, the largest value for the negative criterion (cost)
useful techniques for ranking and selecting the number of possible al­ and the smallest value for the positive criterion) (Hwang and Yoon,
ternatives through Euclidean distance. The TOPSIS method was intro­ 1981; Wang and Lee, 2009).
duced by Hwang and Yoon (1981). This method selects the alternative In this method, the ranking of alternatives is presented as cardinal
with the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution (for example, and there is no need for the criteria priorities to be independent (Beh­
the largest value for positive criteria and the smallest possible value for zadian et al., n.d.). In this paper, the fuzzy TOPSIS method provided by
negative criteria (cost)) and the greatest distance from the negative ideal Tzeng and Huang (2011) was used, which is one of the popular methods

12
J. Heidary Dahooie et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

Table 7
Pairwise comparisons of main criteria based on experts’ opinions.
Pairwise comparisons between the best Criteria and all other criteria Pairwise comparisons between the worst criteria and all other criteria

Expert Best C1 C2 C3 C4 Worst C1 C2 C3 C4

#1 C2 (1.5, 2, 2.5) (1, 1, 1) (0.67, 1, 1.5) (2.5, 3, 3.5) C4 (0.67, 1, 1.5) (2.5, 3, 3.5) (1.5, 2, 2.5) (1, 1, 1)
#2 C2 (0.67, 1, 1.5) (1, 1, 1) (1.5, 2, 2.5) (3.5, 4, 4.5) C4 (2.5, 3, 3.5) (3.5, 4, 4.5) (0.67, 1, 1.5) (1, 1, 1)
#3 C2 (0.67, 1, 1.5) (1, 1, 1) (1.5, 2, 2.5) (2.5, 3, 3.5) C4 (1.5, 2, 2.5) (2.5, 3, 3.5) (0.67, 1, 1.5) (1, 1, 1)
#4 C2 (0.67, 1, 1.5) (1, 1, 1) (3.5, 4, 4.5) (2.5, 3, 3.5) C3 (1.5, 2, 2.5) (3.5, 4, 4.5) (1, 1, 1) (0.67, 1, 1.5)

Table 8
Pairwise comparisons of sub-criteria based on experts’ opinions.
Pairwise comparisons between the best Criteria and all other criteria Pairwise comparisons between the worst criteria and all other criteria

Expert Best C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 Worst C11 C12 C13 C14 C15
#1 C11 (1, 1, 1) (2.5, 3, (1.5, 2, 2.5) (0.67, 1, (0.67, 1, C12 (2.5, 3, 3.5) (1, 1, 1) (0.67, 1, (1.5, 2, (1.5, 2,
3.5) 1.5) 1.5) 1.5) 2.5) 2.5)
#2 C11 (1, 1, 1) (3.5, 4, (1.5, 2, 2.5) (0.67, 1, (0.67, 1, C12 (3.5, 4, 4.5) (1, 1, 1) (0.67, 1, (1.5, 2, (2.5, 3,
4.5) 1.5) 1.5) 1.5) 2.5) 3.5)
#3 C11 (1, 1, 1) (3.5, 4, (1.5, 2, 2.5) (0.67, 1, (0.67, 1, C12 (3.5, 4, 4.5) (1, 1, 1) (0.67, 1, (2.5, 3, (1.5, 2,
4.5) 1.5) 1.5) 1.5) 3.5) 2.5)
#4 C12 (1.5, 2, (1, 1, 1) (0.67, 1, (2.5, 3, 3.5) (0.67, 1, C14 (0.67, 1, (2.5, 3, (1.5, 2, 2.5) (1, 1, 1) (1.5, 2,
2.5) 1.5) 1.5) 1.5) 3.5) 2.5)

Table 9
Pairwise comparisons of sub-criteria based on experts’ opinions.
Pairwise comparisons between the best Criteria and all other criteria Pairwise comparisons between the worst criteria and all other criteria

Expert Best C21 C22 C23 C24 Worst C21 C22 C23 C24
#1 C22 (0.67, 1, 1.5) (1, 1, 1) (3.5, 4, 4.5) (2.5, 3, 3.5) C23 (1.5, 2, 2.5) (3.5, 4, 4.5) (1, 1, 1) (0.67, 1, 1.5)
#2 C22 (2.5, 3, 3.5) (1, 1, 1) (1.5, 2, 2.5) (1.5, 2, 2.5) C21 (1, 1, 1) (2.5, 3, 3.5) (0.67, 1, 1.5) (0.67, 1, 1.5)
#3 C22 (1.5, 2, 2.5) (1, 1, 1) (2.5, 3, 3.5) (0.67, 1, 1.5) C23 (0.67, 1, 1.5) (2.5, 3, 3.5) (1, 1, 1) (1.5, 2, 2.5)
#4 C22 (1.5, 2, 2.5) (1, 1, 1) (1.5, 2, 2.5) (0.67, 1, 1.5) C21 (1, 1, 1) (1.5, 2, 2.5) (0.67, 1, 1.5) (0.67, 1, 1.5)

in the field of MADM (Mardani et al., 2015). The results of this method by Opricovic (2011) has been used. The results of this method are given
are shown in Table 15. in Table 17.

3.4.3. Results of fuzzy WASPAS method 3.4.5. Results of fuzzy MABAC method
The Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC)
method, introduced in 2012 by Zavadskas et al., is a combination of method was presented by Pamucar & Cirovic in 2015 (Pamučar and
weighted sum model (WSM) and weighted product model (WPM). In the Ćirović, 2015). Due to the extensive modifications that have been
WSM model, which is also known as the simple additive weighting applied to this method in order to solve various problems, it has become
(SAW), the values of the alternative in terms of the criteria are added one of the most popular methods in the field of MADM (“Modification of
together for each alternative while the separate weights of the criteria the Best–Worst and MABAC methods: A novel approach based on
are applied (Mulliner et al., 2016). On the other hand, the weighted interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers,” n.d.). In this method, the basis
product model, which is similar to the weighted sum model, uses for ranking the alternatives is the distance of the criterion function of
multiplication instead of the basic arithmetic operation of addition each of the examined alternatives from the border approximation area
(Mulliner et al., 2016). In both methods, cost criteria are transformed (Vesković et al., 2018). After determining the distance from the border
into benefit criteria by normalizing the decision matrix. In the WASPAS approximation area, the alternatives are placed in the upper approxi­
method, the ranking of alternatives depends on the standard deviation of mate area (Q+ ) and the lower approximate area (Q− ).
both methods, so that if the impact factor (λ) (calculated based on the Finally, after calculating the values of the criterion functions for the
standard deviation of both methods) is zero, the ranking will be based on alternatives, the sum of the distances of the alternatives from the border
WPM and if it is equal to one, the ranking will be based on WSM (E K approximation area is obtained. By calculating the sum of the elements
Zavadskas et al., n.d.). In this paper, the fuzzy WASPAS method pre­
sented by Turskis et al. (2015) is used. The results of this method can be
found in Table 16. Table 10
Pairwise comparisons of sub-criteria based on experts’ opinions.
3.4.4. Results of fuzzy VIKOR method Pairwise comparisons between the best Pairwise comparisons between
the VIKOR method is one of the well-known and popular compro­ Criteria and all other criteria the worst criteria and all other
mising methods in the field of multi-attribute decision making, which criteria
was introduced by Opricovic in 1998 (Mardani et al., 2015; Opricovic Expert Best C31 C32 C33 Worst C31 C32 C33
and Tzeng, 2004, 2002). In general, this technique focuses on ranking #1 C32 (2.5, (1, (3.5, C33 (0.67, (3.5, (1,
the alternatives and selecting them based on a set of conflicting criteria, 3, 3.5) 1, 1) 4, 4.5) 1, 1.5) 4, 4.5) 1, 1)
#2 C32 (1.5, (1, (2.5, C33 (0.67, (2.5, (1,
and ultimately helps the decision maker to reach the final solution by
2, 2.5) 1, 1) 3, 3.5) 1, 1.5) 3, 3.5) 1, 1)
providing a compromise approach (Alinezhad and Khalili, 2019; Opri­ #3 C32 (1.5, (1, (2.5, C33 (0.67, (2.5, (1,
covic, 2011; Opricovic and Tzeng, 2002). Finally, a compromise 2, 2.5) 1, 1) 3, 3.5) 1, 1.5) 3, 3.5) 1, 1)
approach that is close to the ideal is chosen as a practical solution #4 C32 (1.5, (1, (1.5, C33 (0.67, (1.5, (1,
(Opricovic, 2011). In this research, the fuzzy VIKOR method provided 2, 2.5) 1, 1) 2, 2.5) 1, 1.5) 2, 2.5) 1, 1)

13
J. Heidary Dahooie et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

Table 12

(2.5, 3, 3.5)
Final Normalized weights and global weights.

(0.67, 1,
(1, 1, 1)

(1, 1, 1)
code Final weight Global Weight

1.5)
C47
Main Criteria C1 (0.1914, 0.2379, 0.2987) -
C2 (0.3193, 0.388, 0.4532) -
C3 (0.1914, 0.2418, 0.2781) -

(1, 1, 1)
C4 (0.1135, 0.1352, 0.1585) -

(2.5, 3,

(1.5, 2,

(1.5, 2,
Sub-criteria C11 (0.2439, 0.2714, 0.3441) (0.0467, 0.0645, 0.1028)

3.5)

2.5)

2.5)
C46
C12 (0.1127, 0.1231, 0.1608) (0.0216, 0.0293, 0.048)
C13 (0.1223, 0.1405, 0.1952) (0.0234, 0.0334, 0.0583)
C14 (0.1882, 0.205, 0.2797) (0.036, 0.0488, 0.0836)
(0.67, 1,

(0.67, 1,

(0.67, 1,

(0.67, 1,
C15 (0.2055, 0.2249, 0.3074) (0.0393, 0.0535, 0.0918)
C21 (0.1969, 0.234, 0.3151) (0.0629, 0.0908, 0.1428)
1.5)

1.5)

1.5)

1.5)
C45
Pairwise comparisons between the worst criteria and all other criteria

C22 (0.3568, 0.4027, 0.5051) (0.1139, 0.1563, 0.2289)

C23 (0.1282, 0.1446, 0.1875) (0.0409, 0.0561, 0.085)
C24 (0.1708, 0.195, 0.2579) (0.0545, 0.0757, 0.1169)
C31 (0.173, 0.2196, 0.298) (0.0331, 0.0531, 0.0829)
(0.67, 1,

(0.67, 1,

(0.67, 1,
(1, 1, 1)

C32 (0.5353, 0.5837, 0.6508) (0.1024, 0.1411, 0.181)

1.5)

1.5)

1.5)
C44

C33 (0.1479, 0.1884, 0.2459) (0.0283, 0.0456, 0.0684)

C41 (0.0851, 0.1035, 0.1284) (0.0097, 0.014, 0.0203)
C42 (0.1478, 0.1605, 0.1842) (0.0168, 0.0217, 0.0292)
C43 (0.2231, 0.2563, 0.2972) (0.0253, 0.0347, 0.0471)
4,

4,

4,

3,

C44 (0.0785, 0.0854, 0.097) (0.0089, 0.0116, 0.0154)

(3.5,

(3.5,

(3.5,

(2.5,
4.5)

4.5)

4.5)

3.5)
C43

C45 (0.0852, 0.1036, 0.132) (0.0097, 0.014, 0.0209)

C46 (0.1662, 0.1812, 0.2205) (0.0189, 0.0245, 0.0349)
C47 (0.0859, 0.0994, 0.1246) (0.0097, 0.0134, 0.0197)
(2.5, 3, 3.5)

(0.67, 1,

(0.67, 1,

(0.67, 1,
1.5)

1.5)

1.5)
C42

of the matrix Q in each row, the final values of the criterion functions of
the alternatives are obtained, and the alternative with the highest cri­
terion function value is selected as the best alternative (Pamučar and
(0.67, 1,

(0.67, 1,

(0.67, 1,

(0.67, 1,

Ćirović, 2015).
1.5)

1.5)

1.5)

1.5)

In this paper, the fuzzy MABAC method presented by Liang et al.

C41

(2019) is used. The results of this method are shown in Table 18.
Worst
C47

C47

C44

C46

3.4.6. Results of fuzzy SAW method

The Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method was introduced by
Churchman and Ackoff (1954) (Tzeng and Huang, 2011). Due to its long
(1, 1, 1)
(3.5, 4,

(3.5, 4,

(2.5, 3,

history, it is one of the most well-known and widely used methods in the
4.5)

4.5)

3.5)
C47

field of MADM (Podvezko, 2011; Tzeng and Huang, 2011; Zanakis et al.,
1998). In this method, the alternative values in terms of the criteria are
(2.5, 3, 3.5)

added together for each alternative and the criteria weights are applied
(0.67, 1,

(0.67, 1,

(0.67, 1,

separately (Mulliner et al., 2016). In general, this method is compatible

1.5)

1.5)

1.5)
C46

with the benefit type criteria. Therefore, at the time of normalization of

the decision matrix, the criteria that are cost-effective should be con­
verted to the benefit criteria. Finally, after calculating the normalized
2,

3,

2,

2,

weighted matrix, the alternative with the highest value is selected as the
(1.5,

(2.5,

(1.5,

(1.5,
2.5)

3.5)

2.5)

2.5)
C45

best solution (Mulliner et al., 2016).

In this research, the fuzzy SAW method presented by Chou et al.
(2008) has been used. The results of this method are shown in Table 19.
Pairwise comparisons between the best Criteria and all other criteria

(2.5, 3,

(2.5, 3,

(3.5, 4,

(2.5, 3,
Pairwise comparisons of sub-criteria based on experts’ opinions.

3.5)

3.5)

4.5)

3.5)
C44

3.5. Aggregating the results and final ranking

As mentioned in the previous sections, the use of different MADM

(0.67, 1,
(1, 1, 1)

(1, 1, 1)

(1, 1, 1)

methods sometimes leads to different results (Barak and Dahooei, 2018;

Jahan et al., n.d.; Mulliner et al., 2016; Shahrasbi et al., 2017; Varma­
1.5)
C43

zyar et al., 2016; Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas et al., n.d.). However,

none of the proposed methods is conclusively superior to other methods
(1.5, 2, 2.5)

(1.5, 2, 2.5)

(1.5, 2, 2.5)

(Mulliner et al., 2016; Varmazyar et al., 2016). Therefore, it is important

(0.67, 1,

to choose the right MADM method in the decision-making process

1.5)
C42

(Barak and Dahooei, 2018; Jahan et al., n.d.; Mulliner et al., 2016;
Shahrasbi et al., 2017; Varmazyar et al., 2016). Hence, it is recom­
mended to apply more than one MADM method and use the integrated
(1.5, 2,

(2.5, 3,

(2.5, 3,

(1.5, 2,

results to make the final decision (Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas

2.5)

3.5)

3.5)

2.5)
C41

et al., n.d.).
According to the literature, some researchers have used different
Best
C43

C43

C43

C47

sensitivity analysis methods to select the best ranking method after

adopting several MADM methods to rank the alternatives (Antuchevi­
Table 11

Expert

ciene et al., 2011; Baležentis and Streimikiene, 2017; Banihabib et al.,

#1

#2

#3

#4

2017a; Keshavarz Ghorabaee et al., 2017; Maliene et al., 2018;

14
J. Heidary Dahooie et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

Table 13
Aggregated decision matrix with quantitative values based on criteria from hierarchical fuzzy group decision-making based on BWM.
Main C1 C2

Sub C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C21 C22 C23 C24
A1 (0.0584, (0.0563, (0.078, (0.0783, (0.0547, (0.0554, (0.0862, (0.0697, (0.076, 0.1045, 0.1315)
0.0723, 0.0652, 0.0845, 0.0848, 0.0593, 0.0609, 0.1138, 0.0755,
0.0786) 0.0758) 0.0909) 0.0913) 0.0691) 0.0745) 0.1301) 0.0812)
A2 (0.0783, (0.0755, (0.1168, (0.0788, (0.1155, (0.0742, (0.0862, (0.0697, (0.1303, 0.1654, 0.1976)
0.1078, 0.0967, 0.1266, 0.1084, 0.1452, 0.0865, 0.1166, 0.0755,
0.1188) 0.1145) 0.1371) 0.1195) 0.1882) 0.1125) 0.1301) 0.0812)
A3 (0.0783, (0.1294, (0.0785, (0.1351, (0.1155, (0.1272, (0.1995, (0.1792, (0.0659, 0.0714, 0.0769)
0.1078, 0.1624, 0.108, 0.119) 0.1711, 0.1452, 0.1434, 0.2602, 0.1941,
0.1188) 0.1964) 0.2049) 0.1882) 0.193) 0.2801) 0.2089)
A4 (0.2017, (0.1695, (0.1775, (0.1773, (0.167, (0.191, (0.0862, (0.1755, (0.164, 0.1776, 0.1988)
0.2184, 0.1835, 0.1922, 0.192, 0.1808, 0.2127, 0.1166, 0.19, 0.2045)
0.2386) 0.1975) 0.2068) 0.2066) 0.1946) 0.2489) 0.1301)
A5 (0.0778, (0.075, (0.0586, (0.0588, (0.0663, (0.0742, (0.161, (0.0575, (0.0567, 0.0701, 0.0762)
0.0843, 0.0813, 0.0724, 0.0727, 0.0718, 0.0865, 0.2022, 0.0674,
0.0907) 0.0875) 0.0788) 0.0791) 0.0773) 0.1125) 0.2429) 0.0726)
A6 (0.1343, (0.1695, (0.1346, (0.1173, (0.167, (0.1666, (0.0748, (0.1214, (0.1968, 0.246, 0.2648)
0.1701, 0.1835, 0.1749, 0.127, 0.1808, 0.1804, 0.0959, 0.1651,
0.2037) 0.1975) 0.2041) 0.1378) 0.1946) 0.1941) 0.105) 0.1977)
A7 (0.2029, (0.1956, (0.2034, (0.2042, (0.1808, (0.1923, (0.0862, (0.1899, (0.1314, 0.1768, 0.1988)
0.2536, 0.2288, 0.2542, 0.2552, 0.2104, 0.2138, 0.1166, 0.2393,
0.273) 0.2632) 0.2736) 0.2747) 0.2584) 0.2587) 0.1301) 0.2715)
Main C3 C4
Sub C31 C32 C33 C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 C46 C47
A1 (0.0614, (0.0726, (0.1965, (0.0633, (0.052, (0.0512, (0.0687, (0.053, (0.0553, (0.0667,
0.0736, 0.0825, 0.242, 0.0812, 0.0641, 0.07) 0.0593, 0.0881, 0.0655, 0.0603, 0.0722,
0.0866) 0.0888) 0.2626) 0.089) 0.0638) 0.0965) 0.0713) 0.0744) 0.0898)
A2 (0.0713, (0.073, (0.1977, (0.073, (0.1196, (0.1063, (0.0792, (0.071, (0.0741, (0.0894,
0.0949, 0.0862, 0.2471, 0.0964, 0.1509, 0.1452, 0.1134, 0.093, 0.0849, 0.1018,
0.107) 0.1191) 0.266) 0.1102) 0.1814) 0.1758) 0.1221) 0.1077) 0.1284) 0.1384)
A3 (0.09, (0.1892, (0.0758, (0.1364, (0.0697, (0.1067, (0.0792, (0.1218, (0.1269, (0.0894,
0.1259, 0.2069, 0.0821, 0.1858, 0.0956, 0.1452, 0.1134, 0.1633, 0.1448, 0.1018,
0.1582) 0.2545) 0.0884) 0.2058) 0.1058) 0.1758) 0.1221) 0.1847) 0.1928) 0.1384)
A4 (0.133, (0.188, (0.0763, (0.1364, (0.1206, (0.1397, (0.1236, (0.1601, (0.1664, (0.1674,
0.1685, 0.2036, 0.1034, 0.1713, 0.1695, 0.1512, 0.1858, 0.1733, 0.1802, 0.1812,
0.1996) 0.2192) 0.1157) 0.2058) 0.1824) 0.1819) 0.2232) 0.1865) 0.194) 0.234)
A5 (0.133, (0.0545, (0.1308, (0.073, (0.1047, (0.1063, (0.0792, (0.1043, (0.0741, (0.0759,
0.1671, 0.059, 0.1754, 0.0964, 0.1598, 0.1452, 0.1046, 0.113, 0.0849, 0.0821,
0.1996) 0.0733) 0.1985) 0.1102) 0.1814) 0.1758) 0.1195) 0.1242) 0.1283) 0.1316)
A6 (0.133, (0.1252, (0.0569, (0.1139, (0.1206, (0.1123, (0.1236, (0.1601, (0.1908, (0.1527,
0.1671, 0.1469, 0.0704, 0.1713, 0.1609, 0.1512, 0.1858, 0.1733, 0.2105, 0.1745,
0.1996) 0.1899) 0.0766) 0.2058) 0.1824) 0.1819) 0.2232) 0.1865) 0.2495) 0.2326)
A7 (0.1643, (0.188, (0.0763, (0.1689, (0.1807, (0.1689, (0.1833, (0.184, 0.23, (0.1921, (0.2317,
0.2154, 0.2036, 0.0992, 0.2204, 0.225, 0.2105, 0.2391, 0.2476) 0.2115, 0.2535,
0.2319) 0.2192) 0.1157) 0.2372) 0.2431) 0.2416) 0.2574) 0.2585) 0.3117)

Table 14 Table 15
The optimality function and the degree of an alternative value resulting from Ideal solution and the rank of each alternative resulting from the Fuzzy TOPSIS
ARAS–F method. method.
̃
Si Si Ki rank d+
i
d−i CCi rank

Alternative 0 (0.1093, 0.1847, 0.3529) 0.2156 1 - A1 0.4636 0.0594 0.1135 7

A1 (0.0554, 0.0842, 0.1491) 0.0962 0.4463 7 A2 0.3625 0.1822 0.3345 5
A2 (0.056, 0.0961, 0.1885) 0.1135 0.5264 6 A3 0.2198 0.3319 0.6015 3
A3 (0.0761, 0.1337, 0.2628) 0.1575 0.7305 2 A4 0.1973 0.3487 0.6386 2
A4 (0.073, 0.1277, 0.2457) 0.1488 0.69 3 A5 0.385 0.1589 0.2922 6
A5 (0.0674, 0.1059, 0.2021) 0.1251 0.5803 5 A6 0.2439 0.3003 0.5518 4
A6 (0.062, 0.1088, 0.2162) 0.129 0.5983 4 A7 0.1175 0.4205 0.7816 1
A7 (0.0785, 0.1409, 0.2773) 0.1656 0.7678 1

According to the literature, the rank mean method (Banihabib et al.,

Mousavi-Nasab and Sotoudeh-Anvari, 2018; Mulliner et al., 2016).
Others have used different ranking models to automatically and
powerfully combine the results of several decision-making methods in
order to aggregate the rankings(Akhavan et al., 2015; Banihabib et al.,
2017a, 2017b; Barak and Dahooei, 2018; Barak and Javanmard, 2020;
Chitsaz and Banihabib, 2015; Ghadikolaei et al., 2014; Hussain et al.,
2020; Jahan et al., n.d.; Kaur et al., 2016; Serrai et al., 2019, 2017;
Shahrasbi et al., 2017; Tayal et al., 2017; Varmazyar et al., 2016).
In this study, after using five multi-attribute decision making
methods, the second approach has been used to aggregate the results.
2017b), the Borda method (Banihabib et al., 2017b; Contreras, n.d.;
Fields et al., 2013; Jahan et al., n.d.; Wang et al., 2005), the
Borda-Kendall (BAK) method (Contreras, n.d.; Fields et al., 2013; Tayal
et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2005), the Copeland method (Banihabib et al.,
2017b; Varmazyar et al., 2016), the utility interval method (Barak and
Dahooei, 2018; Varmazyar et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2005), the linear
programming (LP) model (Jahan et al., n.d.; Shahrasbi et al., 2017) and
the ILP model (Kaur et al., 2016; Tayal et al., 2017) are among the
methods used for aggregating the rankings. In this study, the ILP method
was used to aggregate the rankings. One of the advantages of this

15
J. Heidary Dahooie et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

Table 16
Determining the utility function values of the alternatives and their ranking from the fuzzy WASPAS.
̃i
Q ̃i
P Qi Pi λ Ki rank

A1 (0.2321, 0.443, 0.903) (0.1721, 0.4185, 0.6623) 0.5261 0.4176 0.4381 0.4651 7
A2 (0.2558, 0.5102, 1.0879) (0.2106, 0.5042, 0.786) 0.6179 0.5002 0.5518 6
A3 (0.3676, 0.7127, 1.4786) (0.3395, 0.6852, 0.9663) 0.853 0.6637 0.7466 2
A4 (0.374, 0.6893, 1.3651) (0.3524, 0.6631, 0.9044) 0.8095 0.64 0.7142 3
A5 (0.2922, 0.5576, 1.1906) (0.2355, 0.5153, 0.7887) 0.6801 0.5132 0.5863 5
A6 (0.3075, 0.5886, 1.2252) (0.2668, 0.5636, 0.8367) 0.7071 0.5557 0.622 4
A7 (0.3973, 0.7607, 1.553) (0.3717, 0.7084, 0.9721) 0.9037 0.6841 0.7803 1

3.6. Analysis of results

Table 17
Values of Q
̃ j , Qj and the ranking of each alternative resulting from the Fuzzy
Determining the appropriate acquisition method is a prerequisite for
VIKOR method.
the acquisition of technology. In order to properly select the TA method,
̃j
Q Qj rank it is very important to accurately identify the criteria influencing this
selection and to carefully examine each of the TA methods in accordance
A1 (0.2028, 0.3044, 0.4748) 0.3216 7
A2 (0.1277, 0.2497, 0.4231) 0.2625 6 with each of the criteria. Therefore, this study seeks to achieve the most
A3 (0.0424, 0.0663, 0.0905) 0.0664 1 appropriate method of acquisition of interactive television technology
A4 (0.0517, 0.1405, 0.2503) 0.1457 3 by using a combined model of MCDM methods.
A5 (0.1823, 0.2463, 0.346) 0.2552 5
For this purpose, first, the criteria and alternatives were derived from
A6 (0.1013, 0.2096, 0.3448) 0.2163 4
A7 (0.0144, 0.0977, 0.2239) 0.1084 2
literature review and fuzzy Delphi technique was used for localizing the
criteria with the help of experts in this field, the results of which are
given in Tables 5 and 6. In order to form a decision-making matrix, the
Table 18 developed method of fuzzy G-HBWM was used in order to determine the
Calculation of values of the criteria functions by alternatives and weights of the criteria and evaluate the alternatives by the expert group.
ranking of each of alternative from the Fuzzy MABAC method. As shown in Fig. 2, the weights of the criteria are shown as definite
ui rank
values. Based on these calculations, technological factors and environ­
mental and market factors were determined as the most important main
A1 -0.2522 7 criteria. Also, the most important sub-criteria can be considered,
A2 -0.1225 5
respectively, as follows: the strategic importance of technology, the
A3 0.074 3
A4 0.1336 2 innovative rate in industry, the life cycle of technology and the cost for
A5 -0.1538 6 developing or acquiring technology.
A6 0.0276 4 In the scoring stage, the methods of ARAS, TOPSIS, WASPAS, VIKOR,
A7 0.2387 1 MABAC and SAW were used in fuzzy environment. Finally, using the ILP
model, the results were aggregated. The results of the ranking of alter­
natives and aggregating the results are summarized in Table 20. Ac­
Table 19 cording to the results of the final ranking, three alternatives of turnkey
Calculation of values of fuzzy score vector and ranking of each alternative
contracts, ownership of shares and outsourcing have been selected as top
resulting from the Fuzzy SAW method.
priority alternatives. Fig. 3 shows a schematic comparison between the
̃
ui ui rank results from MADM methods and aggregation process. This figure
A1 (0.1955, 0.3319, 0.5637) 0.3637 7 clearly shows that the ILP method has been able to minimize the amount
A2 (0.2446, 0.434, 0.7785) 0.4857 5 of deviations and can be considered as a suitable method to achieve a
A3 (0.3568, 0.6037, 1.0526) 0.671 3 robust consensus.
A4 (0.4132, 0.656, 1.0996) 0.7229 2 The Spearman correlation index was used to assess the correlation
A5 (0.2369, 0.4072, 0.7188) 0.4543 6
A6 (0.3483, 0.5868, 1.0178) 0.651 4
between the final results of the selected methods and the ILP model, as
A7 (0.439, 0.7427, 1.2625) 0.8147 1 given in Table 21. According to Table 21, since all correlation indices are
greater than 0.93, the ILP model is consistent.

method is that it effectively minimizes deviations for large data sets 4. Conclusion
(Kaur et al., 2016). The aggregation model of ILP is (Kaur et al., 2016):
∑n ∑m ⃒ ⃒
⃒Xij − Yi ⃒ Organizations today inevitably look for ways and means to create a
minZ = i=1 j=1 competitive advantage in order to survive. One way to achieve this goal
⎧
1 ≤ Yi ≤ n, ∀i(1, 2, …, n) is to acquire technology. As the first step in acquiring technology in any
⎪
⎨ (12)
s.t. Yi ∕= Yk , ∀i, k such that i ∕=k organization, the existing methods for acquiring it should be examined
⎪
⎩ and the most appropriate method should be selected according to the
Yi is integer ∀i(1, 2, …, n)
conditions of the problem.
In recent years, MCDM models have been considered by many re­
Where Yi indicates the final aggregated ranking for TA method i, Xij
searchers for selecting the appropriate TA method for reasons such as
shows the rank for TA method i based on jth MADM technique, n in­
the impact of various factors on the selection of appropriate acquisition
dicates the number of TA methods, and m shows the number of MADM
methods, the complexity of the TT process and resource constraints.
techniques.
However, researchers in this area have not used powerful combined
The results of this method are given in Table 20.
methods for technology selection problems. In addition, previous
methods do not have an integrated and coherent approach and could not
simultaneously use the group hierarchical structure, for determining the

16
J. Heidary Dahooie et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760

Fig. 2. Final weight of criteria based on experts’ opinion.

Table 20
The ranking results of MADM methods and aggregating method.
Priority of alternatives ARAS-F F-TOPSIS F-WASPAS F-SAW F-MABAC F-VIKOR ILP (Final Ranking)

1 A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 A3 A7
2 A3 A4 A3 A4 A4 A7 A3
3 A4 A3 A4 A3 A3 A4 A4
4 A6 A6 A6 A6 A6 A6 A6
5 A5 A2 A5 A2 A2 A5 A5
6 A2 A5 A2 A5 A5 A2 A2
7 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1

Fig. 3. Ranking obtained using different MADM methods and aggregated ranking results.

17
J. Heidary Dahooie et al.
Table 21
-The Spearman’s correlation coefficients between the fuzzy MCDM methods and the ILP.
F-ARAS F-TOPSIS F-WASPAS
F-ARAS 1 0.93 1 0.93
F-TOPSIS - 1 0.93
F-WASPAS - - 1 0.93
F-SAW - - - 1
F-MABAC - - - -
F-VIKOR - - - -
ILP - - - -
weights of criteria and evaluating the alternatives, and fuzzy numbers,
for dealing with uncertainty. Therefore, in this study, a combined model
of MCDM methods was used in fuzzy environment in order to select the
most appropriate method of TA.
In this framework and in the first phase, the list of criteria and al­
ternatives were prepared by reviewing the literature and then were
localized using the fuzzy Delphi technique with the help of a group of
experts. Then, using the improved Fuzzy G-HBWM, the weights of the
criteria and sub-criteria were calculated, the alternatives were evaluated
according to the criteria by the expert group and the decision matrix was
formed. In the third phase, the alternatives were ranked using MADM
methods including ARAS-F, fuzzy TOPSIS, fuzzy WASPAS, fuzzy VIKOR,
fuzzy MABAC and fuzzy SAW. Then, using the ILP model, final aggre­
gated ranking was obtained.
In addition to using the group hierarchical structure to determine the
weights of the criteria and evaluate the alternatives in the fuzzy envi­
ronment, six widely used and popular methods were applied to evaluate
the alternatives. According to the results of Spearman correlation index,
the ILP model has sufficient consistency to aggregate the ranking results.
Based on the results, the main criteria were determined in order of
importance as: technology factors, environmental and market factors,
organizational factors and partner or vendor factors. Also, the main sub-
criteria in order of importance are: innovative rate in the industry, the
degree of strategic importance of technology, the need to technology
access and the ability to share assets. According to the final ranking
results, turnkey contracts, stock ownership and outsourcing, respec­
tively, were selected as the top three priority alternatives.
For future research, it is recommended to use methods that deal with
hesitancy such as hesitant sets. In addition, methods such as ANP, DANP,
or ISM can be used to examine the relationships among criteria. HDM
may also be included in the analyses as an alternative to AHP. Future
applications should expand this work and leverage a higher number of
experts and expert panels to evaluate a more complex decision problem
like those presented by Estep et al (2021) or Garces et al (2021). This can
be funded by government exploring new technology investments. A
funding to a leading research group with multiple PhD students could
yield technology assessments of technologies under investigation and
therefore significant amount of information for the decision makers.
Credit
Both authors contributed equally
References
A new hybrid model for quality assessment of scientific conferences based on Rough
BWM and SERVQUAL, 2019 n.d.. Scientometrics 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11192-019-03032-z.
Aboutorab, H., Saberi, M., Asadabadi, M.R., Hussain, O., Chang, E., 2018. ZBWM: The Z-
number extension of Best Worst Method and its application for supplier
development. Expert Syst. Appl. 107, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2018.04.015.
Afuah, A., 1998. Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation and Profits.
Oxford University Press.
Akhavan, P., Barak, S., Maghsoudlou, H., Antuchevičienė, J., 2015. FQSPM-SWOT for
strategic alliance planning and partner selection; case study in a holding car
manufacturer company. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 21, 165–185. https://doi.org/
10.3846/20294913.2014.965240.
18
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760
F-SAW F-MABAC F-VIKOR ILP
0.93 0.96 1
1 1 0.86 0.93
0.93 0.96 1
1 0.86 0.93
1 0.86 0.93
- 1 0.96
- - 1
Alinezhad, A., Khalili, J., 2019. New methods and applications in multiple attribute
decision making (Madm), International Series in Operations Research and
Management Science. 10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9.
Alsalem, M.A., Zaidan, A.A., Zaidan, B.B., Hashim, M., Albahri, O.S., Albahri, A.S.,
Hadi, A., Mohammed, K.I., 2018. Systematic review of an automated multiclass
detection and classification system for acute leukaemia in terms of evaluation and
benchmarking, open challenges, issues and methodological aspects. J. Med. Syst.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-018-1064-9.
Antucheviciene, J., Zakarevicius, A., Zavadskas, E.K., 2011. Measuring congruence of
ranking results applying particular MCDM methods. Informatica 22, 319–338.
Baines, T., 2004. An integrated process for forming manufacturing technology
acquisition decisions. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 24, 447–467. https://doi.org/
10.1108/01443570410532533.
Baležentis, T., Streimikiene, D., 2017. Multi-criteria ranking of energy generation
scenarios with Monte Carlo simulation. Appl. Energy 185, 862–871. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.085.
Banihabib, M.E., Hashemi, F., Shabestari, M.H., 2017b. A framework for sustainable
strategic planning of water demand and supply in arid regions. Sustain. Dev. 25,
254–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1650.
Banihabib, M.E., Hashemi-Madani, F.S., Forghani, A., 2017a. Comparison of
compensatory and non-compensatory multi criteria decision making models in water
resources strategic management. Water Resour. Manag. 31, 3745–3759. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11269-017-1702-x.
Barak, S., Dahooei, J.H., 2018. A novel hybrid fuzzy DEA-Fuzzy MADM method for
airlines safety evaluation. J. Air Transp. Manag. 73, 134–149. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.09.001.
Barak, S., Javanmard, S., 2020. Outsourcing modelling using a novel interval-valued
fuzzy quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) and multiple criteria decision-
making (MCDMs). Int. J. Prod. Econ. 222 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2019.09.015.
Behzadian, M., Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, S., Yazdani, M., Ignatius, J., 2012 n.d.
A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst. Appl. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056.
Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L.A., 1970 n.d.. Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment. Manage.
Sci. 17, 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.17.4.b141.
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O.A., Pavlou, P.A., Venkatraman, N., 2013. Digital business
strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 37, 471–482.
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3.
Bonesso, S., Comacchio, A., Pizzi, C., 2011. Technology sourcing decisions in exploratory
projects. Technovation 31, 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
technovation.2011.06.001.
Brugha, C.M., 1998. Structuring and Weighting Criteria in multi Criteria Decision
Making (MCDM), in: Trends in Multicriteria Decision Making. Springer,
pp. 229–242.
Buono, A.F., 1997 n.d.. Technology transfer through acquisition. Manag. Decis. 35,
194–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749710169404.
Büyüközkan, G., Göçer, F., 2018. An extension of ARAS methodology under interval
valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment for digital supply chain. Appl. Soft Comput.
69, 634–654.
Cetindamar, D., Phaal, R., Probert, D., 2016. Technology Management : Activities and
Tools. Palgrave Macmillan.
Chang, P.-L., Chen, Y.-C., 1994 n.d.. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method for
technology transfer strategy selection in biotechnology. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 63,
131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(94)90344-1.
Chehrehpak, M., Alirezaei, A., Farmani, M., 2012. Selecting of optimal methods for the
technology transfer by using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Indian J. Sci.
Technol. 5, 2540–2546. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2012/v5i4/30422.
Chen, Z., Ming, X., Zhou, T., Chang, Y., Sun, Z., 2020. A hybrid framework integrating
rough-fuzzy best-worst method to identify and evaluate user activity-oriented
service requirement for smart product service system. J. Clean. Prod. 253 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119954.
Chiesa, V., Manzini, R., 1998. Organizing for technological collaborations: A managerial
perspective. R D Manag. 10.1111/1467-9310.00096.
Chitsaz, N., Banihabib, M.E., 2015. Comparison of different multi criteria decision-
making models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resour. Manag.
29, 2503–2525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-0954-6.
Cho, D.H., Yu, P.Il, 2000. Influential factors in the choice of technology acquisition
mode: an empirical analysis of small and medium size firms in the Korean
telecommunication industry. Technovation 20, 691–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0166-4972(99)00182-0.
Chou, S.Y., Chang, Y.H., Shen, C.Y., 2008. A fuzzy simple additive weighting system
under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective
J. Heidary Dahooie et al.
attributes. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 189, 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2007.05.006.
Chung, M.C., Wei, C.H., Chen, C.J., 2009. Hierarchical evaluation scheme on technology
sourcing for advanced public transport systems. J. Adv. Transp. 43, 89–111. https://
doi.org/10.1002/atr.5670430106.
Contreras, I., 2011 n.d.. Emphasizing the rank positions in a distance-based aggregation
procedure. Decis. Support Syst. 51, 240–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dss.2010.12.012.
Cowan, K.R., Daim, T.U., 2011. Review of technology acquisition and adoption research
in the energy sector. Technol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.07.001.
Dahooie, J.H., Zavadskas, E.K., Abolhasani, M., Vanaki, A., Turskis, Z., 2018. A Novel
Approach For Evaluation Of Projects Using An Interval-Valued Fuzzy Additive Ratio
Assessment (ARAS) Method: A Case Study Of Oil And Gas Well Drilling Projects.
Symmetry (Basel). 10.3390/sym10020045.
Ebrahimi, M., Rahmani, D., 2019. A five-dimensional approach to sustainability for
prioritizing energy production systems using a revised GRA method: A case study.
Renew. Energy 135, 345–354.
Fattahi, R., Khalilzadeh, M., 2018. Risk evaluation using a novel hybrid method based on
FMEA, extended MULTIMOORA, and AHP methods under fuzzy environment. Saf.
Sci. 102, 290–300.
Fei, L., Lu, J., Feng, Y., 2020. An extended best-worst multi-criteria decision-making
method by belief functions and its applications in hospital service evaluation.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 142, 106355 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106355.
Fields, E.B., Okudan, G.E., Ashour, O.M., 2013. Rank aggregation methods comparison: a
case for triage prioritization. Expert Syst. Appl. 40, 1305–1311. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.060.
Ford, D., 1988. Develop your Technology Strategy. Long Range Plann. 10.1016/0024-
6301(88)90109-4.
Ghadikolaei, A.S., Esbouei, S.K., Antuchevičienė, J., 2014. Applying fuzzy MCDM for
financial performance evaluation of Iranian companies. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ.
20, 274–291. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.913274.
Ghazinoory, S., Daneshmand-Mehr, M., Azadegan, A., 2013 n.d.. Technology selection:
Application of the PROMETHEE in determining preferences - A real case of
nanotechnology in Iran. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 64, 884–897. https://doi.org/10.1057/
jors.2012.45.
Guo, S., Zhao, H., 2017. Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its
applications. Knowledge-Based Syst. 121, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
knosys.2017.01.010.
Hafezalkotob, Arian, Hafezalkotob, A, Liao, H., Herrera, F., 2019 n.d.. Interval
MULTIMOORA method integrating interval borda rule and interval best-worst-
method-based weighting model: case study on hybrid vehicle engine selection. IEEE
Trans. Cybern. 50, 1157–1169. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2018.2889730.
Hafezalkotob, Ashkan, Hafezalkotob, Arian, 2017. A novel approach for combination of
individual and group decisions based on fuzzy best-worst method. Appl. Soft
Comput. J. 59, 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.05.036.
Harris, D., Harris, F.J., 2020 n.d.. Evaluating the transfer of technology between
application domains: A critical evaluation of the human component in the system.
Technol. Soc. 26, 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2004.08.003.
Hemmert, M., 2004. The influence of institutional factors on the technology acquisition
performance of high-tech firms: Survey results from Germany and Japan. Res. Policy
33, 1019–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.04.003.
Hu, R., Wang, Y., 2020. Determinants of firms’ external technology selection: from the
perspective of technology country attributes, in: Advances in Intelligent Systems and
Computing. pp. 548–556. 10.1007/978-3-030-32591-6_59.
Hung, S.W., Tang, R.H., 2008. Factors affecting the choice of technology acquisition
mode: an empirical analysis of the electronic firms of Japan. Korea and Taiwan.
Technovation 28, 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.10.005.
Hussain, A., Chun, J., Khan, M., 2020. A novel customer-centric Methodology for
Optimal Service Selection (MOSS) in a cloud environment. Futur. Gener. Comput.
Syst. 105, 562–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.12.024.
Hwang, C.L., Lai, Y.J., Liu, T.Y., 1993. A new approach for multiple objective decision
making. Comput. Oper. Res. 20, 889–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(93)
90109-V.
Hwang, C.-L., Yoon, K., 1981. Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Mult.
Attrib. Decis. Mak. 58–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3.
Ijadi Maghsoodi, A., Mosavat, M., Hafezalkotob, Ashkan, Hafezalkotob, Arian, 2019.
Hybrid hierarchical fuzzy group decision-making based on information axioms and
BWM: Prototype design selection. Comput. Ind. Eng. 127, 788–804. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cie.2018.11.018.
Jahan, A., Ismail, M.Y., Shuib, S., Norfazidah, D., Edwards, K.L., 2011 n.d.. An
aggregation technique for optimal decision-making in materials selection. Mater.
Des. 32, 4918–4924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.05.050.
Jeon, J., Kim, J., Park, Y., Lee, H., 2017. An analytic network process approach to partner
selection for acquisition and development. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 29,
790–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1241873.
Kahraman, C., Onar, S.C., Oztaysi, B., 2015. Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: a
literature review. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 8, 637–666.
Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., Doǧan, I., 2003. Fuzzy group decision-making for facility
location selection. Inf. Sci. (Ny). 157, 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-
0255(03)00183-X.
Kanojia, M., Shukla, B., Jain, V., Wali, A., Joshi, M., 2020. Factors enabling technology
development and technology transfer from higher education institutions to industry.
In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Advances in Management &
Digital Sciences.
19
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760
Kaur, H., Singh, S.P., Glardon, R., 2016. An integer linear program for integrated supplier
selection: a sustainable flexible framework. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 17, 113–134.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-015-0105-1.
Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J.,
2017. A new hybrid simulation-based assignment approach for evaluating airlines
with multiple service quality criteria. J. Air Transp. Manag. 63, 45–60. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.05.008.
Khalil, M.T., 2000 n.d.. Management of Technology. McGraw-Hill Science.
Khanmohammadi, E., Zandieh, M., Tayebi, T., 2019. Drawing a strategy canvas using the
fuzzy best–worst method. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 20, 57–75. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40171-018-0202-z.
Kumar, S., Luthra, S., Haleem, A., Mangla, S.K., Garg, D., 2015. Identification and
evaluation of critical factors to technology transfer using AHP approach. Int. Strateg.
Manag. Rev. 3, 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ism.2015.09.001.
Kuo, Y.F., Chen, P.C., 2008. Constructing performance appraisal indicators for mobility
of the service industries using Fuzzy Delphi Method. Expert Syst. Appl. 35,
1930–1939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.068.
Lai, W.H., Tsai, C.T., 2009. Fuzzy rule-based analysis of firm’s technology transfer in
Taiwan’s machinery industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 12012–12022. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.054.
Lee, A.H.I., Wang, W.-M., Lin, T.-Y., 2010 n.d.. An evaluation framework for technology
transfer of new equipment in high technology industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 77, 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.06.002.
Lee, H., Lee, S., Park, Y., 2009. Selection of technology acquisition mode using the
analytic network process. Math. Comput. Model. 49, 1274–1282. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mcm.2008.08.010.
Lee, S., Kim, B.S., Kim, Y., Kim, W., Ahn, W., 2018 n.d.. The framework for factors
affecting technology transfer for suppliers and buyers of technology in Korea.
Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 30, 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537325.2017.1297787.
Lee, S., Kim, W., Kim, Y.M., Oh, K.J., 2012 n.d.. Using AHP to determine intangible
priority factors for technology transfer adoption. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 6388–6395.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.12.030.
Li, J., Wang, J., qiang, Hu, hua, J., 2019. Multi-criteria decision-making method based on
dominance degree and BWM with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information. Int. J.
Mach. Learn. Cybern. 10, 1671–1685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-018-0845-2.
Liang, W., Zhao, G., Wu, H., Dai, B., 2019. Risk assessment of rockburst via an extended
MABAC method under fuzzy environment. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 83,
533–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.09.037.
Liao, H., Mi, X., Yu, Q., Luo, L., 2019. Hospital performance evaluation by a hesitant
fuzzy linguistic best worst method with inconsistency repairing. J. Clean. Prod. 232,
657–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.308.
Liao, H.C., Yang, L.Y., Xu, Z.S., 2018. Two new approaches based on ELECTRE II to solve
the multiple criteria decision making problems with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term
sets. Appl. Soft Comput. 63, 223–234.
Ma, D., Hung, S.-W., 2015 n.d.. An Integrated framework for the selection and
acquisition of core technologies: the case of Taiwan’s LED industry. Long Range
Plann 48, 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.09.001.
MacCrimmon, K.R., 1968 n.d. Decision Making Among Multiple–Attribute Alternatives:
A Survey and Consolidated Approach. Arpa Order.
Madu, C.N., 1989. Transferring technology to developing countries-Critical factors for
success. Long Range Plann. 22, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(89)
90089-7.
Maliene, V., Dixon-Gough, R., Malys, N., 2018. Dispersion of relative importance values
contributes to the ranking uncertainty: Sensitivity analysis of Multiple Criteria
Decision-Making methods. Appl. Soft Comput. J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asoc.2018.03.003.
Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Halicka, K., Ejdys, J., Magruk, A., Ungku, U.N., 2018.
Determining the utility in management by using multi-criteria decision support
tools: a review. Econ. Res. Istraz. 31, 1666–1716. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1331677X.2018.1488600.
Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Zavadskas, E.K., 2015. Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making
techniques and applications - Two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Syst.
Appl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003.
Marttunen, M., Lienert, J., Belton, V., 2017. Structuring problems for multi-criteria
decision analysis in practice: a literature review of method combinations. Eur. J.
Oper. Res.
Mehralian, G., Ahmady, R., Majidpour, M., Peiravian, F., 2019. Identification of critical
factors contributing to international technological collaborations: the case of
pharmaceutical industry. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 16 https://doi.org/
10.1142/S0219877019500238.
Mela, K., Tiainen, T., Heinisuo, M., 2012. Comparative study of multiple criteria decision
making methods for building design. Adv. Eng. Informatics 26, 716–726.
Meyer-Stamer, J., 1990. Unconventional Technology Transfer and High-tech
Development: The Case of Informatics in Newly Industrialising Countries, in:
Technology Transfer in the Developing Countries. 10.1007/978-1-349-20558-5_22.
Mi, X., Tang, M., Liao, H., Shen, W., Lev, B., 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, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.omega.2019.01.009.
Modification of the Best–Worst and MABAC methods: A novel approach based on
interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers, 2007 n.d. Expert Syst. Appl. 91, 89–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.08.042.
Mohamed, A.S., Sapuan, S.M., Megat Ahmad, M.M.H., Hamouda, A.M.S., Hang, Tuah,
Bin Baharudin, B.T., 2012 n.d.. Modeling the technology transfer process in the
J. Heidary Dahooie et al.
petroleum industry: evidence from Libya. Math. Comput. Model. 55, 451–470.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.08.025.
Mohammadi, M., Rezaei, J., 2019. Bayesian best-worst method: a probabilistic group
decision making model. Omega (United Kingdom). 10.1016/j.omega.2019.06.001.
Moradian, A., Zand Hessami, H., Majd Pezeshki, P., 2010 n.d.. Prioritization of
technology transfer methods to downstream petrochemical industries in developing
countries. In: Proceedings of the Terengganu International Business and Economics
Conference.
Mou, Q., Xu, Z., Liao, H., 2016. An intuitionistic fuzzy multiplicative best-worst method
for multi-criteria group decision making. Inf. Sci. (Ny). 374, 224–239. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.08.074.
Mousavi-Nasab, S.H., Sotoudeh-Anvari, A., 2017. A comprehensive MCDM-based
approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection
problems. Mater. Des. 121, 237–253.
Mousavi-Nasab, S.H., Sotoudeh-Anvari, A., 2018. A new multi-criteria decision making
approach for sustainable material selection problem: A critical study on rank reversal
problem. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 466–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.02.062.
Mozaffari, M.M., Alvandi, M., Memarzade, M., 2012. A novel MCDM method for
technology selection. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 71, 600–618.
Mullen, P.M., 2003. Delphi: myths and reality. J. Health Organ. Manag. 17, 37–52.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260310469319.
Mulliner, E., Malys, N., Maliene, V., 2016. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for
the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega (United Kingdom) 59,
146–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013.
Opricovic, S., 2011. Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning.
Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 12983–12990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.097.
Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H., 2002. Multicriteria planning of post-earthquake sustainable
reconstruction. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8667.00269.
Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H., 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a
comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156, 445–455.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.
Ortiz-Gallardo, V.G., Probert, D., Phaal, R., 2013. Technology acquisition by
collaboration: a conceptual framework. Strateg. Plan. Decis. High Tech Ind.
9781447148, 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4887-6_8.
Pamučar, D., Ćirović, G., 2015. The selection of transport and handling resources in
logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison
(MABAC). Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 3016–3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2014.11.057.
Podvezko, V., 2011. The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS. Eng.
Econ. 22, 134–146. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310.
Radosevic, S., 1999. Technology and modes of technology transfer. Int. Technol. Transf.
“Catch Up” Econ. Dev.
Ramanathan, R., Ganesh, L.S., 1994 n.d.. Group preference aggregation methods
employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’
weightages. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 79, 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217
(94)90356-5.
Reisman, A., 2005. Transfer of technologies: a cross-disciplinary taxonomy. Omega 33,
189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.04.004.
Rezaei, J., 2015. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega (United
Kingdom) 53, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009.
Rezaei, J., Nispeling, T., Sarkis, J., Tavasszy, L., 2016. A supplier selection life cycle
approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst
method. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.06.125.
Ribeiro, R.A., 1996. Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: A review and new
preference elicitation techniques. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78, 155–181. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0165-0114(95)00166-2.
Roberts, E.B., Berry, C.A., 1985. Entering New Businesses: Selecting Strategies for
Success. Sloan Manage. Rev. 26, 3–17.
Safarzadeh, S., Khansefid, S., Rasti-Barzoki, M., 2018. A group multi-criteria decision-
making based on best-worst method. Comput. Ind. Eng. 126, 111–121. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.09.011.
Sen, F., Rubenstein, A.H., 1990. An Exploration of factors affecting the integration of in-
house R&D with external technology acquisition strategies of a firm. IEEE Trans.
Eng. Manag. 37, 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.62320.
Serrai, W., Abdelli, A., Mokdad, L., Hammal, Y., 2017. Towards an efficient and a more
accurate web service selection using MCDM methods. J. Comput. Sci. 22, 253–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2017.05.024.
Serrai, W., Abdelli, A., Mokdad, L., Serrai, A., 2019. How to Deal with QoS Value
Constraints in MCDM based Web Service Selection. Concurrency Computation.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.4512.
Shahrasbi, A., Shamizanjani, M., Alavidoost, M.H., Akhgar, B., 2017. An aggregated
fuzzy model for the selection of a managed security service provider. Int. J. Inf.
Technol. Decis. Mak. 16, 625–684. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622017500158.
Silva, V.L., Kovaleski, J.L., Pagani, R.N., 2019 n.d.. Technology transfer in the supply
chain oriented to industry 4.0: a literature review. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag.
31, 546–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1524135.
Spann, M.S., Adams, M., Souder, W.E., 1995 n.d.. Measures of technology transfer
effectiveness: key dimensions and differences in their use by sponsors, developers
20
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120760
and adopters. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 42, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/
17.366400.
Sun, X., Li, Y., 2010. An intelligent multi-criteria decision support system for systems
design. In: Proceedings of the 13th MAO & 10th Aviation Technology Integration
and Operation Conference, pp. 13–15.
Tabatabaei, M.H., Amiri, M., Ghahremanloo, M., Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M.,
Zavadskas, E.K., Antucheviciene, J., 2019a. Hierarchical decision-making using a
new mathematical model based on the best-worst method. Int. J. Comput. Commun.
Control 14, 710–725. https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2019.6.3675.
Tabatabaei, M.H., Amiri, M., Khatami Firouzabadi, S.M.A., Ghahremanloo, M.,
Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Saparauskas, J., 2019b. A new group decision-making
model based on bwm and its application to managerial problems. Transform. Bus.
Econ. 18, 197–214.
Tayal, A., Gunasekaran, A., Singh, S.P., Dubey, R., Papadopoulos, T., 2017. Formulating
and solving sustainable stochastic dynamic facility layout problem: a key to
sustainable operations. Ann. Oper. Res. 253, 621–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10479-016-2351-9.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J.R., 2009. Managing Innovation : Integrating Technological, Market
and Organizational Change, 4th ed. John Wiley.
Tsai, J.M., Chang, C.C., Hung, S.W., 2018. Technology acquisition models for fast
followers in high-technological markets: an empirical analysis of the LED industry.
Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 30, 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537325.2017.1297789.
Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E.K., 2010. A new fuzzy additive ratio assessment method (ARAS-
F). Case study: The analysis of fuzzy Multiple Criteria in order to select the logistic
centers location. Transport. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2010.52.
Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E.K., Antucheviciene, J., Kosareva, N., 2015. A hybrid model
based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for construction site selection. Int. J.
Comput. Commun. Control 10, 873–888. https://doi.org/10.15837/
ijccc.2015.6.2078.
Tzeng, G.H., Huang, J.J., 2011. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and
applications, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications.
Varmazyar, M., Dehghanbaghi, M., Afkhami, M., 2016. A novel hybrid MCDM model for
performance evaluation of research and technology organizations based on BSC
approach. Eval. Program Plann. 58, 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
evalprogplan.2016.06.005.
Vesković, S., Stević, Ž., Stojić, G., Vasiljević, M., Milinković, S., 2018. Evaluation of the
railway management model by using a new integrated model DELPHI-SWARA-
MABAC. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 1 https://doi.org/10.31181/
dmame1802034v.
Wahab, S.A., Rose, R.C., Osman, S.I.W., 2011. Defining the concepts of technology and
technology transfer: a literature analysis. Int. Bus. Res. 5 https://doi.org/10.5539/
ibr.v5n1p61.
Wang, T.C., Lee, H.Da, 2009. Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective
weights and objective weights. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 8980–8985. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035.
Wang, Y.M., Yang, J.B., Xu, D.L., 2005. A preference aggregation method through the
estimation of utility intervals. Comput. Oper. Res. 32, 2027–2049. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cor.2004.01.005.
WASPAS and TOPSIS based interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM method for a selection of a car
sharing station, 2018 n.d.. Sustain. Cities Soc. 41, 777–791.
Yarali, A., Cherry, A., 2005. Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). In: Proceedings of the
IEEE Region 10 Annual International Conference, Proceedings/TENCON. https://
doi.org/10.1109/TENCON.2005.300861.
Yoshikawa, T., 2003. Technology development and acquisition strategy. Int. J. Technol.
Manag. 25, 666–674. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2003.003131.
Yu, G., Westholm, T., Kihl, M., Sedano, I., Aurelius, A., Lagerstedt, C., Ödling, P., 2009.
Analysis and characterization of IPTV user behavior. In: Proceedings of the IEEE
International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting,
BMSB 2009. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISBMSB.2009.5133805.
Zanakis, S.H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., Dublish, S., 1998. Multi-attribute decision
making: a simulation comparison of select methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 107, 507–529.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00147-1.
Zavadskas, E K, Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., Zakarevicius, A., 2012 n.d.. Optimization
of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektron. Ir Elektrotechnika 122,
3–6. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810.
Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., 2010 n.d.. A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method
in multicriteria decision-making. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 16, 159–172. https://
doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.10.
Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras, Govindan, K., Antucheviciene, J., Turskis, Z., 2016 n.
d. Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: A review of applications for
sustainability issues. 10.1080/1331677X.2016.1237302.
Zhao, H., Tong, X., Wong, P.K., Zhu, J., 2005. Types of technology sourcing and
innovative capability: An exploratory study of Singapore manufacturing firms.
J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 16, 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
hitech.2005.10.004.
Zheng, Y., Xu, Z., He, Y., Liao, H., 2018. Severity assessment of chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic COPRAS method. Appl. Soft
Comput. 69, 60–71.