پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 32 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 856 |
| تعداد مقالات | 8,306 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 52,805,057 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 9,236,273 |
Two-stage multi-objective technology portfolio planning under resource constraints (case study: Iranian technology development fund) | ||
| Journal of Mathematical Modeling | ||
| دوره 14، شماره 2، مرداد 2026، صفحه 645-671 اصل مقاله (1.39 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22124/jmm.2025.31547.2839 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Marzieh Shaverdi1؛ Khatereh Ghorbani-Moghadam* 2 | ||
| 1Department of STI Financing and Economics, National Research Institution for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Mosaheb Institute of Mathematics | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This study proposes a novel two-stage multi-objective framework for optimal technology portfolio planning and resource allocation under constraints, specifically for Technology Development Funds (TDFs). The integrated methodology combines the Analytic Network Process (ANP) for prioritizing strategic technology fields with a multi-period Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model, solved using a Revised Multi-Choice Goal Programming (RMCGP) approach. The model’s objectives are to maximize technological export potential, maximize international technological cooperation, and minimize financial risk, while incorporating critical real-world mechanisms such as staged financing contingent on Technology Readiness Level (TRL) progress, loan moratorium, and repayment periods. The framework was validated through a real-world case study of an Iranian Technology Development Fund (ITDF), involving eight technology fields and up to 30 projects per field. Key quantitative results demonstrate the model’s efficacy: by reducing the risk objective’s weight from 0.3 to 0.1, the number of approved projects increased over fivefold (from 12 to 65), and the total allocated resources surged nearly tenfold (from $22.2 million to $217.5 million). Sensitivity analysis revealed that fields with high export potential and collaboration capacity (e.g., Advanced Machinery) received the highest funding, while the staged financing mechanism successfully identified and terminated 25% of projects for insufficient technical progress after the first stage. The proposed model provides a robust decision-support tool for policymakers to enhance the strategic impact and financial efficiency of national technology investments. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Technology prioritization؛ Technology portfolio selection؛ Staged financing؛ Moratorium period؛ Reinvestment strategy | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
[1] D.C. Alvarado, S. Acha, N. Shah, C.N. Markides, A technology Selection and Operation (TSO) optimisation model for distributed energy systems: Mathematical formulation and case study, Appl. Energy 180 (2016) 491-503. [2] A. Belz, J. Eckhause, R.J. Terrile, F. Zapatero, A real options methodology for multi-stage project selection: an application to NASA’s SBIR program, Annals Oper. Res. (2025) [3] C.T. Chang, Revised multi-choice goal programming, Appl. Math. Model. 32(12) (2008) 2587–2595. [4] A.Charnes, W.W. Cooper, Management models and industrial applications of linear programming, Manag. Sci. 4 (1957) 38-91. [5] H.Davoudpour, S. Rezaee, M.Ashrafi, Developing aframework for renewable technology portfolio selection: A case study at a R&Dcenter,, Renew. Sustainable. Energy Rev. 16(6) (2012) 4291-4297. [6] M.W. Dickinson, A.C. Thornton, S. Graves, Technology portfolio management: optimizing inter dependent projects over multiple time periods, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 48 (2001) 518-527. [7] R. Etgar, Y. Cohen, Roadmap optimization: multi-annual project portfolio selection method, Math ematics 10(9) (2022) 1601. [8] S.S. Ghazinoori, S.S. Ghazinoori, An Introduction to Science, Technology and Innovation Policy making, Tehran, 2nd Edition, Tarbiat Modares University (In Persian) (2014). [9] F. Hassanzadeh, H. Nemati, M. Sun, Robust optimization for interactive multi-objective program ming with imprecise information applied to R&D project portfolio selection, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 238(1) (2014) 41-53. [10] M. Jafarzadeh, H.R. Tareghian, F. Rahbarnia, R. Ghanbari , Optimal selection of project portfolios using reinvestment strategy within a flexible time horizon, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 243(2) (2015) 658-664. [11] M. Kahn, M. de Melo Luiz, M.G.P. de Matos, Financing Innovation, India, Routledge (2017). [12] E. Karasakal, P. Aker, A multicriteria sorting approach based on data envelopment analysis for R&Dproject selection problem. Omega. 73 (2017) 79-92. [13] O. Kocadagli, R. Keskin, A novel portfolio selection model based on fuzzy goal programming with different importance and priorities, Expert Syst. Appl. 42(20) (2015) 6898-6912. [14] F. Kucukbay, C. Araz, Portfolio selection problem: a comparison of fuzzy goal programming and linear physical programming, Int. J. Optim. Control Theor. Appl. 6(2) (2016) 121-128. [15] J.C. Mankins, Technology readiness and risk assessments: A new approach, Acta Astronautica. 65 (2009) 1208-1215. [16] H. Markowitz, Portfolio selection, J. Finance 7(1) (1952) 77–91. [17] Z. Mashayekhi, H. Omrani, An integrated multi-objective Markowitz–DEA cross-efficiency model with fuzzy returns for portfolio selection problem , Appl. Soft Comput. 38 (2016) 1-9. [18] B. Qiu, Y. Dou, Z. Chen, Optimizing multi-stage project portfolio selection considering integrating lifecycle and interactions, Systems 12(10) (2016) 414. [19] A.M. Ramedani, A. Mehrabian, H. Didehkhani, A two-stage sustainable uncertain multi-objective portfolio selection and scheduling considering conflicting criteria, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 132(2) (2024) 107942 [20] W. Saaty Rozann, Decision Making In Complex Environments; The Analytic Network Process (ANP) for Dependence and Feedback, Creative Devices. Found. (2016). [21] L.T. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning Setting Priorities, Resource Allocation, New York: McGraw-Hill International (1980). [22] A.F. Sattari, Technology portfolio modeling in hybrid environment, Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 5(11) (2011) 7420-7427. [23] M. Shaverdi, S. Yaghoubi, A technology portfolio optimization model considering staged financing and moratorium period under uncertainty, RAIRO Oper. Res. 55 (2021) S1487-S1513. [24] M. Tavana, M. Keramatpour, F.J. Santos-Arteaga, E. Ghorbaniane, A Fuzzy hybrid project portfolio selection method using data envelopment analysis, TOPSIS and integer programming, Expert Syst. Appl. 42(22) (2015) 8432-8444. [25] M. Tavana, K. Khalili-Damghani, S. Sadi-Nezhad, A fuzzy group data envelopment analysis model for high-technology project selection: A case study at NASA, Comput. Ind. Eng. 66(1) (2013) 10-23. [26] R.J. Terrile, J. Byron, A.P. Belz, Consideration of risk and reward in balancing technology portfo lios, 2014 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 1-8 March, Big Sky, MT, USA. [27] J. Wonglimpiyarat, Technology Financing and Commercialization; Exploring the Challenges and HowNations Can Build Innovative Capacity, UK, Palgrave Macmillan (2015). [28] J. Wonglimpiyarat, Entrepreneurial financing for venture and innovation development, Int. J. Fore sight Innov. Policy 5(4) (2009) 234–243. [29] J. Wonglimpiyarat, Government programmes in financing innovations: Comparative innovation system cases of Malaysia and Thailand, Technol. Soc. 33(1) (2011) 156-164. [30] S. YuOliver, Technology Portfolio Planning and Management; Practical Concepts and Tools, USA, Springer (2006) | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 92 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 102 |
||