Abstract

One of the key factors for businesses to ensure their long-term competitiveness is the development of new products/services. In order to do this, they need to carry out R&D projects. However, it is highly risk and uncertainty to identify innovative and high value-added projects from among the many R&D projects in their portfolio. In particular, there are many criteria in the evaluation of projects. The weights of importance given to these criteria at the evaluation stage are very critical. Therefore, the importance of objective evaluation of R&D projects is increasing day by day. In this context, evaluating R&D projects by using fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods that eliminate uncertainty and risks will make this process easier. In this study, it is aimed to prioritize the criteria considered in the evaluation of R&D projects. In the study, firstly, the criteria taken into account in the evaluation of R&D projects were determined through the literature and expert opinions. Then, the criteria were prioritized by importance weights by using the Pythagorean fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, which is flexible and powerful in solving the uncertainties that may arise in the evaluation of R&D projects.

References

[1] Cassiman B, Di Guardo C, Valentini G. The organization and performance evaluation of R&D projects in a dynamic environment. IESE Business School Working 2005;605.

[2] Golovkova MG, Lashmanova NV, Kossukhina MA. Efficiency evaluation of innovative projects for enterprises of high-tech industries. In 2016 XIX IEEE International Conference on Soft Computing and Measurements (SCM) 2016;531-533.

[3] Salimi N, Rezaei J. Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method. Evaluation and program planning 2018; 66:147-155.

[4] Çağrı Tolga A, Kahraman C. Fuzzy multiattribute evaluation of R&D projects using a real options valuation model. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 2008; 23(11):1153-1176.

[5] Liberatore MJ. A decision support approach for R&D project selection. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process 1989; 82-100, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

[6] Lizarralde R, Ganzarain J, Zubizarreta M. Adaptation of the MIVES method for the strategic selection of new technologies at an R&D centre. Focus on the manufacturing sector. Technovation 2022; 115: 102462.

[7] Vernet M, Arasti MR. Linking business strategy to technology strategies: a prerequisite to the R&D priorities determination. International Journal of Technology Management 1999; 18(3-4); 293-307.

[8] Schmidt RL, Freeland JR. Recent progress in modeling R&D project-selection processes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 1992; 39(2): 189-201.

[9] Turkmen GF, Topcu YI. Research and development project selection: a comprehensive analysis of the trends and methods. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering 2021; 32(4): 28-43. 

[10] Poh KL, Ang BW, Bai F. A comparative analysis of R&D project evaluation methods. r&D Management 2001; 31(1): 63-75.

[11] Karasakal E, Aker P. A multicriteria sorting approach based on data envelopment analysis for R&D project selection problem. Omega 2017; 73: 79-92.

[12] Liu F, Chen YW, Yang JB, Xu DL, Liu W. Solving multiple-criteria R&D project selection problems with a data-driven evidential reasoning rule. International Journal of Project Management 2019; 37(1): 87-97.

[13] Yıldırım BF, Kuzu Yıldırım S, Ar-ge proje seçim süreci için yeni bir entegre sezgisel bulanık grup karar verme yaklaşımı. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi 2022; 10(2): 643-653.

[14] Durmaz Ç. Bulanık çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerini kullanarak sürekli iyileştirme projelerinin seçimi ve önceliklendirilmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yüksek Lisans Tezi 2022.

[15] Ranjbar M, Nasiri MM, Torabi SA. Multi-mode project portfolio selection and scheduling in a build-operate-transfer environment. Expert Systems with Applications 2022; 189:116134.

[16] Alizadeh P, Amiri M. A decision support approach for financial policy measures selection. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 2022; (ahead-of-print).

[17] Kısa ACG. Çelik P. Bulanık dematel yaklaşımı ile proje başarısına etki eden kritik faktörlerin değerlendirilmesi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi 2022; 23(1): 71-86.

[18] Jafarzadeh H, Heidary-Dahooie J, Akbari P,  Qorbani A. A project prioritization approach considering uncertainty, reliability, criteria prioritization, and robustness. Decision Support Systems 2022; 156: 113731.

[19] Topçu B. Teknoparklarda Ar-Ge projesi değerlendirme süreci: model önerisi (Doctoral dissertation, İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı) 2021. 

[20] Binici E, Aksakal E. Ar-Ge proje seçim problemine yeni bir yaklaşım ve çözüm önerisi: UTA yöntemi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 2020; 26(1): 211-226.

[21] Kurt ZB, Yildiz A. Ar-ge/inovasyon projelerinin değerlendirilmesi ve önceliklendirilmesi için fuzzy TOPSIS tabanlı karar modeli. Electronic Letters on Science and Engineering 2020; 16(2): 93-107.

[22] Bayrakdaroğlu FK, Kundakci N. Bulanık EDAS yöntemi ile ar-ge projesi seçimi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi 2019;(24): 151-170. 

[23] Binici E. Ar-Ge proje seçim sürecinin fayda temelli değerlendirilmesi: UTA ve UTASTAR yöntemleri ile bir uygulama (Master's thesis, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü) 2019.

[24] Sarı EB. Endüstri işletmelerinde ar-ge projelerini öncelik sıralamasında ENTROPİ ağırlıklı TOPSIS yöntemine dayalı çok kriterli bir analiz. International Journal of Academic Value Studies 2017; 3(11): 159-170.

[25] Yıldız A. Bulanık VIKOR yöntemini kullanarak proje seçim sürecinin incelenmesi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2014; 14(1): 115-127.

[26] Ayan TY, Perçin S. Ar-ge projelerinin seçiminde grup kararIna dayalI bulanık karar verme yaklaşımı. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 2012; 26(2): 237-255.

[27] Park S, Hong YW, Na JK. A method for selecting the evaluation index of defence R&D project by AHP. Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society 2012; 23(5): 961-970.

[28] Silva AC, Belderrain MCN, Pantoja FCM. Prioritization of R&D projects in the aerospace sector: AHP method with ratings. Journal of Aerospace Technology and Management 2010; 2:339-348.

[29] Imoto S, Yabuuchi Y, Watada J. Fuzzy regression model of R&D project evaluation. Applied Soft Computing 2008; 8(3): 1266-1273.

[30] Mohanty RP, Agarwal R, Choudhury AK, Tiwari MK. A fuzzy ANP-based approach to R&D project selection: a case study. International Journal of Production Research 2005; 43(24): 5199-5216.

[31] Wang K, Wang CK, Hu C. Analytic hierarchy process with fuzzy scoring in evaluating multidisciplinary R&D projects in China. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 2005;52(1): 119-129.

[32] Hsu YG, Tzeng GH, Shyu JZ. Fuzzy multiple criteria selection of government‐sponsored frontier technology R&D projects. R&D Management 2003; 33(5): 539-551.

[33] Işıklar G, Büyüközkan G. Using a multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate mobile phone alternatives. Computer Standards & Interfaces 2007; 29(2): 265-274.

[34] Alkan N. Yalın tedarik zinciri kapsamında sanayi 4.0 için sektörel önceliklendirmenin bulanık çok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla analizi. Master's thesis YTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü 2019. 

[35] Yıldız A, Ayyıldız E, Gümüş AT, Özkan C. Ülkelerin yaşam kalitelerine göre değerlendirilmesi için hibrit pisagor bulanık AHP-TOPSIS metodolojisi: Avrupa Birliği örneği. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 2019; 17:1383-1391.

[36] Ayyıldız E, Gumus AT. Pythagorean fuzzy AHP based risk assessment methodology for hazardous material transportation: an application in Istanbul. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2021; 1-13.

[37] Yucesan, M, Gul, M. Hospital service quality evaluation: an integrated model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Soft Computing, 2020; 24(5): 3237-3255.

[38] Shete PC, Ansari ZN, Kant R. A Pythagorean fuzzy AHP approach and its application to evaluate the enablers of sustainable supply chain innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption 2020; 23: 77-93.

[39] Karasan A, Ilbahar E, Kahraman C. A novel pythagorean fuzzy AHP and its application to landfill site selection problem. Soft Computing 2019; 23(21): 10953-10968.