Sustainable Technological Expectations Using a New MCDM Approach: Sensitivity–Alternatives–Ranking Analysis (SARA)

Sandeep  Bhattacharjee

doi:10.31181/sa41202651

Authors

Sandeep Bhattacharjee Sandeep Amity University, Kolkata, Rajarhat, Newtown, Kolkata, West Bengal 700135, India. Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6686-3947

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/sa41202651

Keywords:

Decision-making, Multi-criteria analysis, Sensitivity analysis, Sustainability, Technological evaluation, VlseKriterijumska optimizacija i kompromisno resenje method

Abstract

Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approaches that are transparent and robust are crucial to meet the rising demand for sustainable decision-making in technology management. This paper presents a novel methodology, the Sensitivity-Alternatives-Ranking Analysis (SARA) method, that combines sensitivity testing, alternative selection, and ranking visualization to assess long-term technology expectations. The suggested approach is implemented in a case study incorporating alternative technologies, and its results are compared with the VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) method and validated through extensive sensitivity analysis. The results demonstrate consistent and stable ranks across varying criteria weights, confirming the SARA framework's robustness. In comparison to standard MCDM methods, the SARA method enhances both interpretability and reliability through integration of technology evaluations, normalized scores, and visualization-based insights. The study suggests a practical and conceptually sound technique for long-term decision-making that may assist policymakers, researchers, and practitioners in conducting complex technical evaluations.

References

De Kaa, G., Rezaei, J., Kamp, L., & de Winter, A. (2014). Photovoltaic technology selection: A fuzzy MCDM approach. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 32, 662–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.044

Aliakbari Nouri, F., Khalili Esbouei, S., & Antucheviciene, J. (2015). A hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS for technology selection. Informatica, 26(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.3233/INF-2015-1067

Wang, K., Ying, Z., Goswami, S. S., Yin, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2023). Investigating the role of artificial intelligence technologies in the construction industry using a Delphi-ANP-TOPSIS hybrid MCDM concept under a fuzzy environment. Sustainability, 15(15), 11848. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511848

Javaid, M., Khan, S., Haleem, A., & Rab, S. (2023). Adoption of modern technologies for implementing industry 4.0: An integrated MCDM approach. Benchmarking: an international journal, 30(10), 3753–3790. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2021-0017

Chen, M. F., Tzeng, G. H., & Tang, T. I. (2005). Fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluation of expatriate assignments. International journal of information technology decision making, 4(02), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622005001520

Li, M., Jin, L., & Wang, J. (2014). A new MCDM method combining QFD with TOPSIS for knowledge management system selection from the user’s perspective in intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Applied soft computing, 21, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.03.008

Wang, C. N., Dang, T. T., Hsu, H. P., & others. (2021). Evaluating sustainable last-mile delivery (LMD) in B2C E-commerce using two-stage fuzzy MCDM approach: A case study from Vietnam. IEEE access, 9, 146050–146067. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3121607

Çolak, M., Kaya, .Ihsan, Özkan, B., Budak, A., & Kara csan, A. (2020). A multi-criteria evaluation model based on hesitant fuzzy sets for blockchain technology in supply chain management. Journal of intelligent fuzzy systems, 38(1), 935–946. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-179460

Moghtadernejad, S., Chouinard, L. E., & Mirza, M. S. (2018). Multi-criteria decision-making methods for preliminary design of sustainable facades. Journal of building engineering, 19, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.05.006

Alghannam, E., Lu, H., Ma, M., Cheng, Q., Gonzalez, A. A., Zang, Y., & Li, S. (2019). A novel method of using vision system and fuzzy logic for quality estimation of resistance spot welding. Symmetry, 11(8), 990. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11080990

Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016). Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (785–794). https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785

Nielsen, D. (2016). Tree boosting with xgboost-why does xgboost win" every" machine learning competition? [thesis]. https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2433761/16128

Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey. Springer-Verlag. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1970023484880077608

Palczewski, K., & Sałabun, W. (2019). The fuzzy TOPSIS applications in the last decade. Procedia computer science, 159, 2294–2303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.404

Çelikbilek, Y., & Tüysüz, F. (2020). An in-depth review of theory of the TOPSIS method: An experimental analysis. Journal of management analytics, 7(2), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/23270012.2020.1748528

Sarkar, A. (2013). A TOPSIS method to evaluate the technologies. International journal of quality reliability management, 31(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-03-2013-0042

Monjezi, M., Dehghani, H., Singh, T. N., Sayadi, A. R., & Gholinejad, A. (2012). Application of TOPSIS method for selecting the most appropriate blast design. Arabian journal of geosciences, 5(1), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-010-0133-2%0A%0A

Kelemenis, A., & Askounis, D. (2010). A new TOPSIS-based multi-criteria approach to personnel selection. Expert systems with applications, 37(7), 4999–5008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.013

Ashrafzadeh, M., Rafiei, F. M., Isfahani, N. M., & Zare, Z. (2012). Application of fuzzy TOPSIS method for the selection of warehouse location: A case study. Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business, 3(9), 655–671. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Farimah-Mokhatab-Rafiei/publication/265521806

Meshram, S. G., Alvandi, E., Meshram, C., Kahya, E., & Fadhil Al-Quraishi, A. M. (2020). Application of SAW and TOPSIS in prioritizing watersheds. Water resources management, 34(2), 715–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02470-x%0A%0A

Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2016). A comparative analysis of VIKOR method and its variants. Decision science letters, 5(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2016.5.004 %0D

Yazdani, M., & Graeml, F. R. (2014). VIKOR and its applications: A state-of-the-art survey. International journal of strategic decision sciences (ijsds), 5(2), 56–83. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijsds.2014040105

Mirahmadia, N., & Teimouryb, E. (2012). A fuzzy VIKOR model for supplier selection and evaluation: Case of EMERSUN company. Management, 4(3), 42.

Shojaei, P., Haeri, S. A. S., & Mohammadi, S. (2018). Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique. Journal of air transport management, 68, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.05.006

Li, X., Han, Z., Yazdi, M., & Chen, G. (2022). A CRITIC-VIKOR based robust approach to support risk management of subsea pipelines. Applied ocean research, 124, 103187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2022.103187

Fei, L., Deng, Y., & Hu, Y. (2019). DS-VIKOR: A new multi-criteria decision-making method for supplier selection. International journal of fuzzy systems, 21(1), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0543-y%0A%0A

Kleijnen, J. P. C. (1997). Sensitivity analysis and related analyses: a review of some statistical techniques. Journal of statistical computation and simulation, 57(1–4), 111–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00949659708811805

Homma, T., & Saltelli, A. (1996). Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models. Reliability engineering system safety, 52(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(96)00002-6

Saltelli, A. (2002). Sensitivity analysis for importance assessment. Risk analysis, 22(3), 579–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00040

Saltelli, A., Chan, K., & Scott, E. M. (2000). Sensitivity analysis: Gauging the worth of scientific models. John Wiley Sons. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DvkhEQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=•%09Saltelli

Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Tarantola, S., & Campolongo, F. (2005). Sensitivity analysis for chemical models. Chemical reviews, 105(7), 2811–2828. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr040659d

Saltelli, A., Aleksankina, K., Becker, W., Fennell, P., Ferretti, F., Holst, N., Wu, Q. (2019). Why so many published sensitivity analyses are false: A systematic review of sensitivity analysis practices. Environmental modelling software, 114, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.012

Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., & Campolongo, F. (2000). Sensitivity analysis as an ingredient of modeling. Statistical science, 377–395. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2676831

Christopher Frey, H., & Patil, S. R. (2002). Identification and review of sensitivity analysis methods. Risk analysis, 22(3), 553–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00039

Castillo, E. M,. Inguez, R., & Castillo, C. (2008). Sensitivity analysis in optimization and reliability problems. Reliability engineering system safety, 93(12), 1788–1800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.03.010

Heiselberg, P., Brohus, H., Hesselholt, A., Rasmussen, H., Seinre, E., & Thomas, S. (2009). Application of sensitivity analysis in design of sustainable buildings. Renewable energy, 34(9), 2030–2036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.02.016

Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 1(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590

Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European journal of operational research, 156(2), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1

Govindan, K., & Jepsen, M. B. (2016). ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European journal of operational research, 250(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.019

Mardani, A., Streimikiene, D., Balezentis, T., Saman, M. Z. M., Nor, K. M., & Khoshnava, S. M. (2018). Data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental economics: An overview of the state-of-the-art and recent development trends. Energies, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/en11082002

Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to COmpromise Solution (MARCOS). Computers industrial engineering, 140, 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231

Phelps, C. E., & Mushlin, A. I. (1988). Focusing technology assessment using medical decision theory. Medical decision making, 8(4), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X8800800409

Tyler, B. B., & Kevin Steensma, H. (1995). Evaluating technological collaborative opportunities: A cognitive modeling perspective. Strategic management journal, 16(S1), 43–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160917

Choudhury, A. K., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2006). Consensus-based intelligent group decision-making model for the selection of advanced technology. Decision support systems, 42(3), 1776–1799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.001

Mohanty, R. P., & Deshmukh, S. G. (1998). Advanced manufacturing technology selection: A strategic model for learning and evaluation. International journal of production economics, 55(3), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00075-9

Xia, D., Yu, Q., Gao, Q., & Cheng, G. (2017). Sustainable technology selection decision-making model for enterprise in supply Chain: Based on a modified strategic balanced scorecard. Journal of cleaner production, 141, 1337–1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.083

Lee, Y. C., Li, M. L., Yen, T. M., & Huang, T. H. (2010). Analysis of adopting an integrated decision making trial and evaluation laboratory on a technology acceptance model. Expert systems with applications, 37(2), 1745–1754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.07.034

Shen, Y. C., Lin, G. T. R., & Tzeng, G. H. (2012). A novel multi-criteria decision-making combining decision making trial and evaluation laboratory technique for technology evaluation. Foresight, 14(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636681211222410?urlappend=%3Futm

Molloy, S., & Schwenk, C. R. (1995). The effects of information technology on strategic decision making. Journal of management studies, 32(3), 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1995.tb00777.x

Schniederjans, M. J., Hamaker, J. L., & Schniederjans, A. M. (2010). Information technology investment: Decision-making methodology. World Scientific Publishing Company. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PxY8DQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=•+Schniederjan

Goetghebeur, M. M., Wagner, M., Khoury, H., Levitt, R. J., Erickson, L. J., & Rindress, D. (2012). Bridging Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Medical decision making, 32(2), 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X11416870

Ritrovato, M., Faggiano, F. C., Tedesco, G., & Derrico, P. (2015). Decision-oriented health technology assessment: One step forward in supporting the decision-making process in hospitals. Value in health, 18(4), 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.002

Oortwijn, W., Determann, D., Schiffers, K., Tan, S. S., & van der Tuin, J. (2017). Towards integrated health technology assessment for improving decision making in selected countries. Value in health, 20(8), 1121–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.03.011

Halila, F. (2007). The adoption and diffusion of environmental innovations [Thesis]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228659907_The_adoption_and_diffusion_of_environmental

Karakaya, E., Hidalgo, A., & Nuur, C. (2014). Diffusion of eco-innovations: A review. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 33, 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.083

Beise, M. (2001). Lead markets: Country-specific success factors of the global diffusion of innovations (14). Springer Science Business Media. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=etBbXYAlICkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=•%09Beise,+M.+(2001).+Lead+markets:+Country-sp

Waarts, E., van Everdingen, Y. M., & Van Hillegersberg, J. (2002). The dynamics of factors affecting the adoption of innovations. Journal of product innovation management: an international publication of the product development management association, 19(6), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1960412

Redmond, W. H. (2004). Interconnectivity in diffusion of innovations and market competition. Journal of business research, 57(11), 1295–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00453-8

Sawng, Y. W., & Han, H. S. (2007). Market analysis for the next-generation mobile communications (DMB) service from the perspective of innovation adoption and diffusion. International journal of satellite communications and networking, 25(4), 323–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/sat.874

Cheng, J. M. S., Kao, L. L. Y., & Lin, J. Y. C. (2004). An investigation of the diffusion of online games in Taiwan: An application of Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory. Journal of american academy of business, 5(1/2), 439–445. http://im1.im.tku.edu.tw/~myday/teaching/992/SEC/S/992SEC_T7_Paper_20110429.pdf

Franceschinis, C., Thiene, M., Scarpa, R., Rose, J., Moretto, M., & Cavalli, R. (2017). Adoption of renewable heating systems: An empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory. Energy, 125, 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.060

Mamun, A. Al. (2018). Diffusion of innovation among Malaysian manufacturing SMEs. European journal of innovation management, 21(1), 113–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2017-0017

Johnson, M. (2010). Barriers to innovation adoption: A study of e-markets. Industrial management data systems, 110(2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011020287

MacVaugh, J., & Schiavone, F. (2010). Limits to the diffusion of innovation: A literature review and integrative model. European journal of innovation management, 13(2), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061011040258

Choi, H., Kim, S. H., & Lee, J. (2010). Role of network structure and network effects in diffusion of innovations. Industrial marketing management, 39(1), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.08.006

Sáenz Royo, C., Gracia Lázaro, C., & Moreno, Y. (2015). The role of the organization structure in the diffusion of innovations. PloS one, 10(5), e0126076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126076

Schwarz, N., & Ernst, A. (2009). Agent based modeling of the diffusion of environmental innovations—An empirical approach. Technological forecasting and social change, 76(4), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.03.024

Mehmood, Y., Barbieri, N., & Bonchi, F. (2016). Modeling adoptions and the stages of the diffusion of innovations. Knowledge and information systems, 48(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-015-0889-5%0A%0A

Schiavone, F., & Simoni, M. (2019). Strategic marketing approaches for the diffusion of innovation in highly regulated industrial markets: the value of market access. Journal of business industrial marketing, 34(7), 1606–1618. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2018-0232

Tran, D. H., & Long, L. D. (2018). Project scheduling with time, cost and risk trade-off using adaptive multiple objective differential evolution. Engineering, construction and architectural management, 25(5), 623–638. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2017-0085

Kannengießer, N., Lins, S., Dehling, T., & Sunyaev, A. (2020). Trade-offs between distributed ledger technology characteristics. ACM computing surveys (csur), 53(2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3379463

Berander, P., Damm, L. O., Eriksson, J., Gorschek, T., Henningsson, K., Jönsson, P. (2005). Software quality attributes and trade-offs. Blekinge institute of technology, 97(98), 19. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeanette-Eriksson/publication/238700270_Software_quality_attributes_and_trade

Parnell, G. S. (2016). Trade-off analytics: creating and exploring the system tradespace. John Wiley Sons. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=AWZJDQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR19&dq=•%09Parnell

Bai, Q., Labi, S., & Li, Z. (2008). Trade off analysis methodology for asset management. Transportation research board (trb) 87th annual meeting. Joint transportation research program. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314305%0A%0A

Linkov, I., Varghese, A., Jamil, S., Seager, T. P., Kiker, G., & Bridges, T. (2004). Multi-criteria decision analysis: A framework for structuring remedial decisions at contaminated sites. In Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making (15–54). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2243-3%0A%0A

Gold, S., & Krishnamurty, S. (1997). Trade-offs in robust engineering design. International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (80449). American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC97/DAC-3757

Acar, C., Haktanir, E., Temur, G. T., & Beskese, A. (2024). Sustainable stationary hydrogen storage application selection with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy AHP. International journal of hydrogen energy, 49, 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.10.081

Rupp, R., Laska, T., Häberlen, O., & Treu, M. (2014). Application specific trade-offs for wbg sic, gan and high end si power switch technologies. 2014 ieee international electron devices meeting (2–3). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEDM.2014.7046965

Singh, B., Strømman, A. H., & Hertwich, E. G. (2012). Scenarios for the environmental impact of fossil fuel power: Co-benefits and trade-offs of carbon capture and storage. Energy, 45(1), 762–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.07.014

Dong, S., Li, J., Kim, M. H., Park, S. J., Eden, J. G., Guest, J. S., & Nguyen, T. H. (2017). Human health trade-offs in the disinfection of wastewater for landscape irrigation: microplasma ozonation vs. chlorination. Environmental science: water research technology, 3(1), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EW00235H

Rothwell, A., Ridoutt, B., Page, G., & Bellotti, W. (2016). Environmental performance of local food: Trade-offs and implications for climate resilience in a developed city. Journal of cleaner production, 114, 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.096

Giller, K. E., Tittonell, P., Rufino, M. C., Van Wijk, M. T., Zingore, S., Mapfumo, P. (2011). Communicating complexity: Integrated assessment of trade-offs concerning soil fertility management within African farming systems to support innovation and development. Agricultural systems, 104(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.07.002

Viscusi, W. K., Magat, W. A., & Huber, J. (1991). Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar trade-offs for chronic bronchitis. Journal of environmental economics and management, 21(1), 32–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(91)90003-2

Madhu, K., Pauliuk, S., Dhathri, S., & Creutzig, F. (2021). Understanding environmental trade-offs and resource demand of direct air capture technologies through comparative life-cycle assessment. Nature energy, 6(11), 1035–1044. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00922-6%0A%0A

Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical modelling, 9(3), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8

Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and economic development of economy, 17(2), 397–427. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.593291

Kahraman, C., Onar, S. C., & Oztaysi, B. (2015). Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: A literature review. International journal of computational intelligence systems, 8(4), 637–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2015.1046325