A Hybrid MADM Approach Based on Simple Additive Weighting and TOPSIS: An Application on Comparison of Innovation Performances of the EU Countries

Abstract

This study aims to objectively compare the long-term innovation performances of the EU countries. In this context, we propose a hybrid multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) approach combining Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and TOPSIS. The proposed approach (CST) uses the alternatives’ quadratic utility functions considering the weighted sum value and distance to the positive ideal solution. It also uniquely determines the criteria weight vector using a strictly concave maximization problem. Using the Summary Innovation Index (SII) data for the 2016-2023 period, CST reveals that Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands are in the first three ranks. In contrast, Romania, Bulgaria, and Latvia are in the last three ranks.

Keywords

• Convex Optimization
• Innovation
• Multi-Attribute Decision-Making
• Simple Additive Weighting
• TOPSIS

References

1. Acuña-Soto, C., Liern, V., & Pérez-Gladish, B. (2021). Normalization in TOPSIS-based approaches with data of different nature: application to the ranking of mathematical videos. Annals of Operations Research, 296(1), 541-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2945-5
2. Anderson, H. J., & Stejskal, J. (2019). Diffusion efficiency of innovation among EU member states: a data envelopment analysis. Economies, 7(2), 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies7020034
3. Aytekin, A., Ecer, F., Korucuk, S., & Karamaşa, Ç. (2022). Global innovation efficiency assessment of EU member and candidate countries via DEA-EATWIOS multi-criteria methodology. Technology in Society, 68, 101896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101896
4. Beck, A., & Sabach, S. (2014). A first order method for finding minimal norm-like solutions of convex optimization problems. Mathematical Programming, 147(1), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-013-0708-2
5. Bouslah, K., Liern, V., Ouenniche, J., & Pérez‐Gladish, B. (2023). Ranking firms based on their financial and diversity performance using multiple‐stage unweighted TOPSIS. International Transactions in Operational Research, 30(5), 2485-2505. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13143
6. Boyd, S. P., & Vandenberghe, L. (2004). Convex optimization. Cambridge University Press.
7. Brodny, J., Tutak, M., Grebski, W., & Bindzár, P. (2023). Assessing the level of innovativeness of EU-27 countries and its relationship to economic, environmental, energy and social parameters. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(2), 100073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100073
8. Chen, C.-P., Hu, J.-L., & Yang, C.-H. (2011). An international comparison of R&D efficiency of multiple innovative outputs: The role of the national innovation system. Innovation, 13(3), 341-360. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2011.13.3.341

9. Do Carmo Silva, M., Gavião, L. O., Gomes, C. F. S., & Lima, G. B. A. (2020). Global Innovation Indicators analysed by multicriteria decision. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(4), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.2020.040
10. Ecer, F., & Aycin, E. (2023). Novel comprehensive MEREC weighting-based score aggregation model for measuring innovation performance: The case of G7 countries. Informatica, 34(1), 53-83. https://doi.org/10.15388/22-INFOR494
11. EIS (2023). European Innovation Scoreboard 2023, the Summary Innovation Index. (Accessed:07/03/2024) https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/statistics/performance-indicators/european-innovation-scoreboard/eis
12. Erdin, C., & Çağlar, M. (2023). National innovation efficiency: A DEA-based measurement of OECD countries. International Journal of Innovation Science, 15(3), 427-456. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-07-2021-0118
13. European Commission (2023). European Innovation Scoreboard 2023 methodology report. (Accessed:07/03/2024) https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/statistics/performance-indicators/european-innovation-scoreboard_en
14. Eurostat (2023). Glossary: Innovation. (Accessed:07/03/2024) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Innovation
15. Grant, M. C., & Boyd, S. P. (2008). Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs. In Recent Advances in Learning and Control, 95-110. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-155-8_7
16. Jeon, J., Geetha, S., Kang, D., & Narayanamoorthy, S. (2022). Development of the evaluation model for national innovation capability. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(3), 335-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1900561
17. Jurickova, E., Pilik, M., & Kwarteng, M. A. (2019). Efficiency measurement of national innovation systems of the European Union countries: DEA model application. Journal of International Studies, 12(4), 286-299. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2019/12-4/19
18. Kabadurmuş, Ö., & Karaman Kabadurmuş, F. N. (2019). Innovation in Eastern Europe & Central Asia: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(3), 98-121. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v7i3.1234
19. Kaynak, S., Altuntas, S., & Dereli, T. (2017). Comparing the innovation performance of EU candidate countries: an entropy-based TOPSIS approach. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 30(1), 31-54. http://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2016.1265895
20. Murat, D. (2020). The measurement of innovation performance in OECD countries. Journal of Management & Economics Research, 18(4), 209-2026. http://doi.org/10.11611/yead.822303
21. Namazi, M., & Mohammadi, E. (2018). Natural resource dependence and economic growth: A TOPSIS/DEA analysis of innovation efficiency. Resources Policy, 59, 544-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.09.015
22. Ozkaya, G., Timor, M., & Erdin, C. (2021). Science, technology and innovation policy indicators and comparisons of countries through a hybrid model of data mining and MCDM methods. Sustainability, 13(2), 694. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020694
23. Satı, Z. E. (2024). Comparison of the criteria affecting the digital innovation performance of the European Union (EU) member and candidate countries with the entropy weight-TOPSIS method and investigation of its importance for SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, 123094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123094
24. Selvaraj, G., & Jeon, J. (2021). Assessment of national innovation capabilities of OECD countries using trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy ELECTRE III method. Data Technologies and Applications, 55(3), 400-429. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTA-07-2020-0154
25. Taherdoost, H. (2023). Analysis of simple additive weighting method (SAW) as a multi-attribute decision-making technique: A step-by-step. Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research, 6(1), 21-24. https://doi.org/10.30564/jmser.v6i1.5400
26. Vafaei, N., Ribeiro, R. A., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2022). Assessing normalization techniques for simple additive weighting method. Procedia Computer Science, 199, 1229-1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.156