Global Innovation Indicators analysed by multicriteria decision

IF 1.9 Q3 OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Marcela do Carmo Silva, L. Gavião, Carlos Francisco Simões Gomes, G. B. A. Lima
{"title":"Global Innovation Indicators analysed by multicriteria decision","authors":"Marcela do Carmo Silva, L. Gavião, Carlos Francisco Simões Gomes, G. B. A. Lima","doi":"10.14488/bjopm.2020.040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Goal: This paper analyses how European countries of Global Innovation Indicators (GII) present in the ranking by multicriteria support aid analysis. Design / Methodology / Approach: The methodology uses Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) for ranking countries and PROMETHÉE (Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluations) for outranking them. Results: There was change in 30 ordered positions from 39 countries observed. At noncompensatory method the overrating become “easier” than the compensatory method, especially when there are many alternatives and criteria for computing with small difference among values. Limitations of the investigation: It is only used the GII 2015 Europe for continuing investigations about MCDA realized for Latin America (2017) and Asia and Africa (2019). Practical implications: The applications result in a different understanding about TOPSIS ranking application, from original score list at GII; and also the perception of organized groups at outranking application. Originality / Value: Observing GII via MCDA is possible to see changing’s in the ranking according to countries profiles different from GII raking. Although European profiles seem to be similar, it is important to observe other perspective of grouping by them; suggesting quantitative studies inclusion and innovative trends.","PeriodicalId":54139,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14488/bjopm.2020.040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Goal: This paper analyses how European countries of Global Innovation Indicators (GII) present in the ranking by multicriteria support aid analysis. Design / Methodology / Approach: The methodology uses Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) for ranking countries and PROMETHÉE (Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluations) for outranking them. Results: There was change in 30 ordered positions from 39 countries observed. At noncompensatory method the overrating become “easier” than the compensatory method, especially when there are many alternatives and criteria for computing with small difference among values. Limitations of the investigation: It is only used the GII 2015 Europe for continuing investigations about MCDA realized for Latin America (2017) and Asia and Africa (2019). Practical implications: The applications result in a different understanding about TOPSIS ranking application, from original score list at GII; and also the perception of organized groups at outranking application. Originality / Value: Observing GII via MCDA is possible to see changing’s in the ranking according to countries profiles different from GII raking. Although European profiles seem to be similar, it is important to observe other perspective of grouping by them; suggesting quantitative studies inclusion and innovative trends.
采用多标准决策分析全球创新指标
目的:通过多标准支持援助分析,分析欧洲国家在全球创新指标(GII)排名中的表现。设计/方法/方法:该方法使用理想解决方案相似性排序偏好技术(TOPSIS)对国家进行排名,并使用PROMETHÉE(富集评估偏好排序组织方法)对国家进行排名。结果:观察到的39个国家的30个排序位置发生了变化。在非补偿性方法中,特别是当有许多选择和计算标准且值之间的差异很小时,高估变得比补偿性方法“容易”。调查的局限性:仅将GII 2015欧洲用于对拉丁美洲(2017年)和亚洲和非洲(2019年)实现的MCDA进行持续调查。实际影响:应用程序导致对TOPSIS排名应用程序的不同理解,从GII的原始分数列表;还有有组织的团体在排名上高于应用程序的感觉。独创性/价值:通过MCDA观察GII可以看到不同国家的排名变化。虽然欧洲的概况似乎是相似的,但重要的是要观察他们分组的其他角度;建议定量研究的包容性和创新趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
27
审稿时长
44 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信