A Framework for Assessing Innovations, Business Models and Sustainability for Software Companies Using Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making

Abstract

The management staff of software companies are constantly looking for ways to build market advantage and win business strategies. Introducing changes in companies is a costly process and carries the risk of poor allocation of resources. This article provides decision-makers with a tool that increases the chance of making the right business decisions and can also be a guide in the transformation of business models. The scientific aim of this article was to simultaneously cover three areas, innovation, business models, and sustainable development, to develop a scheme enabling the construction of rankings of the elements of these areas in a version dedicated to software producing companies. Rankings, which are built using the hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) method, indicate to decision-makers the need for building strategic development plans, which aspects are the most important, and what the order of possible implementations should be. Based on a multi-criteria analysis, it was found that (i) in terms of innovation, companies should focus their attention first on implementing product, process, and technological innovations; (ii) within innovative business models, attempts should be made to produce IT systems using virtualization and dockerization, as well as efforts should be made to closely bind customers with the offered products and services and offer temporary rental of IT systems instead of classic licenses; and (iii) in the context of the classic three levels of sustainable development, companies should focus primarily on economic and financial issues.

1. Introduction

This article covers the relationship between the three spheres: innovation and business models and sustainable development. First, it is necessary to review the definitions of individual concepts in order to then consider the connections between these areas.

Innovations do not have a uniform definition. The definition from the so-called Oslo Manual [1], which is used to assess the innovation of the public sector, is very broad and means the implementation of new or significantly improved solutions in business activities in the four areas: process, product, marketing, or organizational. Real market success is determined by breakthrough innovations on a global scale that lead to solving the identified needs of target customers. However, in practice, innovation is already mentioned in the case of a new solution on the scale of a single enterprise. Product innovations include the introduction of products or services to the market that were previously unknown or those that have new or significantly improved functional or utility features [2]. They usually carry high risk and require significant financial and organizational investments [3]. In turn, process innovations involve the implementation of a new or improved production or delivery method and are often associated with changes in technology, devices, and software [4]. Often, the goal of process innovations is to reduce production or delivery costs [5]. Marketing innovations involve the implementation of a new marketing method involving significant changes in the design, construction of the product or packaging, distribution, promotion, or pricing strategy [6]. They usually focus on, among others, strengthening the product’s position on the market, conquering new markets, and expanding the customer segment [7]. Organizational innovation means the implementation of a new organizational method in the operating principles adopted by the company, in the organization of the workplace, or in relations with the environment [8]. They optimize the company’s operating costs by improving internal administrative processes [9]. The Oslo Manual model with four perspectives has been extended by researchers to include two more types of innovations: political and conceptual ones [10]. Conceptual innovations postulate a positive approach to the process of negating existing processes, the organization of companies, products, and services. Political innovations, in turn, combine conceptual innovations with those introduced by governments. It is worth distinguishing a relatively new category of social innovations [11], which aim to improve the quality of life of people, nations, and communities. Related to social innovations is currently gaining popularity in the sphere of servitization [12], the importance of which will increase with the increase in the standard of living of societies and the modern structure of consumption. Servitization means increasing the share of services in various sections of the economy’s macrostructure. The use of modern technologies in services speeds up the execution of transactions, increases their repeatability (while improving the quality of services), and increases efficiency. The use of technology in services standardizes them and unifies the offer for subsequent recipients, often eliminating the human factor and personal relationships between the service provider and the recipient. This may cause some recipients to believe that the services provided in this way lose their service dimension, which leads to dissatisfaction among some customers. Another type of innovation is technological innovation [13]. The impact of financial innovations on reducing carbon dioxide emissions and technological innovations and digitalization on increasing carbon dioxide emissions in OECD countries was studied by Ullah et al. [14]. In turn, in [15], it was stated that the introduction of an innovation chain in the advanced technology industry supports the development of the green transformation of the industry. Digital transformations and innovations in the SME group were the subject of consideration in [16].

Implementing innovations is a necessary process for companies to survive in a changing world. Neglecting implementation in this area may result in a loss of market share. There are examples of global corporations that were forced to react to changing market rules or did not introduce changes to established business patterns at the right time (e.g., Kodak [17], Nokia [18], Yahoo [19]) and, as a result, had to face the outflow of customers to other companies. On the other hand, there are examples of companies and industries that, thanks to the courage to implement innovations, have entered the path of rapid development [20]. It is interesting for decision-makers to learn what areas of innovation companies should emphasize in difficult times, which always generate market changes and are a good moment for change [21]. According to [22], optimization of the financial results of SME companies may be based on human resources potential, business diversification, and the use of open innovations.

As with innovation, there are many different definitions of building business models. According to the important work of Teece [23], a business model defines how an enterprise plans to create and deliver value to its business customers, how it convinces them to order and pay for these values, and how these financial flows are turned into profit. The author also states that the concept of a business model has no established theoretical basis in both economics and business studies. In articles [24,25] the authors discuss four types of business models: Business-To-Business Models (B2B), Business-To-Consumer Models (B2C), Subscription-Based Models, and On-Demand Business Model. In the article [26], the authors introduced a division of business models into four types (creators, distributors, owners, and brokers) based on the rights to assets and depending on the assets involved (financial, physical, human, and intangible). Based on this scheme, nearly all 11,000 companies were assigned to specific four types of business models listed at the beginning of the 21st century on the New York Stock Exchange. One of the most popular business models today is the Business Model Canvas [27]. Research shows that business models consist largely of the same templates [28]. Connections between these known solutions can, through comparison and analogy, contribute to the emergence of new ways of connecting and creating further winning business models. Managers usually consider modernizing and developing innovations in the company’s business model. However, implementing this plan poses a number of problems, starting with the proper prioritization of partial tasks. In [29], eight key elements that create business models were defined: (i) values; (ii) revenue model; (iii) opportunity to enter the market; (iv) competition; (v) competitive advantage; (vi) strategy; (vii) organizational development; and (viii) management staff. The authors stated that business models should have established and separate conditions, the fulfilment of which is important in order to provide customers with unique values that determine the company’s advantage over the competition.

It is certain that non-standard thinking and courage were the causative factors in the success of companies that decided to take a risk and change their business models [30]. Especially companies in the field of modern technologies, producers of IT equipment and software, must conduct intensive research and development work and be constantly open to all new products on the market [31]. An interesting connection between the five dimensions of innovation and the transformation of business models is presented in [32]. There is also the phenomenon of business model innovation, in which business model innovations may arise as a result of four processes: strategic, cognitive, knowledge, and value-shaping [33].

Publications dealing with the issue of the relationship between innovation, business success, and business models [34] now often include links with sustainable development [35]. In [36], 100 SME were examined for innovation in the area of sustainable development, revealing those aspects of management that can be used for improvements in this area. A large group of factors were related to cooperation with customers and involving them in the development of company products and processes. A special form of business models is the sustainable business model (SBM). According to bibliometric research 1998–2023 [37], the most important and most frequently cited publications regarding SBM include three items [38,39,40]. Zott et al. [38] analyzed the bank’s business model and the impact of IT integration processes and sustainable economics on its innovation. Boons and Ludeke-Freund [39] proposed examples of conditions that business models should meet to be recognized as supporting sustainable innovation. Bocken and Short [40] analyzed innovative business models that support sustainable development and, on this basis, proposed a scheme of signposts whose implementation facilitates the introduction of SBM. Significant literature research on innovation in SBM was presented by [41]. The work examined the reasons why the implementation of innovative business models ends in failure. The new trend of supporting SBM implementation through new digital technologies was studied in [42]. The authors stated that the increasing impact and role of digitalization in companies have received no equivalent response in the number of studies on the impact of these solutions on SBM, and there is a research gap in this area [43]. In [44], a scheme of six principles for assessing the connection between sustainable development and the business model innovation process was proposed, resulting from the synthesis of fifteen selected sustainability assessment tools.

The direct impact of business model innovation on the sustainable development of companies was analyzed by Kajtazi [45]. The study concluded that an increase in the level of business model innovation results in an increase in the level of sustainable development of the enterprise. The evolution of the business model to balance the economic aspect with the goals of sustainable social and environmental development was analyzed by Principato [46]. Combining and assessing innovation and sustainable development is a complex and complicated process because it focuses on the often contradictory needs of individual industries. It requires dedicated tools to assess the sustainability orientation of the innovator’s company during the development of products and services [47].

As part of research dedicated to companies of various sizes, the authors [48] claim that ecological and sustainable innovations will probably be a factor in changing the SME sector. In the article [49], the authors propose methods to strengthen the company’s strategy and identify internal barriers that make it difficult for companies to transition to SBM and the advantages of sustainable financing. In a study of digital platforms [50], it was found that the development and maintenance of the SBM e-market in the long run are determined by the influences of the economic and social dimensions. The work [51] presents an analysis of the connections between three levels: innovation in sustainable business models, SBM, and innovation in the standard business model.

Innovation in the context of the achievements goals of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was analyzed by Dzhunushalieva [52] and Nahar [35]. The connections between innovation, technology, and science towards meeting the SDGs are the subject of research in Schot [53]. A review of the literature relating the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to business and innovation is presented in the article [54]. The SDG goals were created in 2015, but articles dedicated to the simultaneous connections between innovation, sustainable development, and business models have only been created since 2017 [54]. The work [55] analyzed the impact of digitalization, modern technologies, data mining, and artificial intelligence on both the opportunities and threats to implement SDG sustainable development plans. Sinha’s work [56] analyzed the impact and connection of innovation and technological progress on the environment and sustainable development goals and proposed indicators for assessing these areas.

It has been pointed out [46] that there is a research gap and little research focusing on the impact of business model innovations on aspects of environmental and social sustainability. The subject area of the next group of works focuses on the use of MCDM methods to assess the issues discussed in the article.

In [57], a hybrid MCDM model was proposed for IT companies to assess the barriers arising when implementing a sustainable cloud environment with artificial intelligence solutions. Environmental and economic issues that influence decisions in the area of these implementations were also identified. The assessment of competitiveness factors of SME companies using the CM-DEMATEL (Cognitive Mapping-Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) method was analyzed by [58]. Blockchain technology in sales was assessed using the DEMATEL and ordinal method priorities approach at work [59]. The assessment of the degree of sustainable development of the IT industry using the DEMATEL method was carried out in [60]. The hybrid DEMATEL methodology for assessing manufacturing companies is presented in [61]. In [62], a study of the flexibility of an IT-supported supply chain was conducted using the Grey-based DEMATEL method.

An overview of over 3.5 thousand works in the field of DEMATEL was presented in [63]. The latest studies in the area of DEMATEL often focus on improvements to this methodology that reduce the impact of the subjectivity of expert assessments and thus increase the reliability of the method. The authors achieve this effect by introducing the Random Forest Weighting (RFW) methodology for assessing weighting parameters and generalization error [64]. A solution to the problem of non-convergence in DEMATEL was proposed in [65] using Finite Sum of Influences (FSI) and the New Revised Group (NRG) methodology [66], as an improvement to the Revised Group method [67].

The example of the evaluation of suppliers for companies in the SME sector using PROMETHEE II was carried out in [68]. The FAHP-PROMETHEE method was used to determine obstacles to doing business for SME companies [69].

The relationship between two levels, innovation and business models, seems natural and obvious. However, the analysis of the simultaneous connection of these two spheres with the third level, sustainable development, for a separate sphere of companies producing software in the SME area, indicates an insufficient number of articles and the existence of a research gap in the assessment of these relationships.

In this context, this article fills a research gap and makes novel contributions, including the following:

• The development of the MCD model, which enables the simultaneous analysis of three related spheres: eight types of innovations, twenty business models, and three parameters of sustainable development, in a version dedicated to software producing companies.
• Building rankings of the elements of these three areas, which indicate to decision-makers the needs of building strategic development plans, which aspects are the most important, and what the order of possible implementations should be.
• In order to fill the research gap, it will be helpful to formulate three research questions (RQs):

RQ1. What areas of innovation and new business models should software companies consider to implement sustainable development principles?

RQ2. Which areas of innovation and new business models are the most important for software companies?

RQ3. What should be the order of implementation of individual innovations and business models in software companies?

The research questions are discussed in Section 2 and Section 4. The answers to the above questions allow software companies to make correct business decisions, enter development paths more easily, reduce costs, and effectively engage company resources.

The following chapters contain the following issues: Section 2 describes the model proposed for IT companies, linking types of innovations and modern business models with classic levels of sustainable development. Section 3 presents the multi-criteria DEMATEL and PROMETHEE II methodology, which were used in Section 4 to evaluate and formulate rankings in the proposed model. The last part contains summary remarks and indicates directions for further research, as well as identifying research gaps in the proposed methodology.

2. Sphere Innovation, Models of Business, and Sustainable Development in Software Companies

Sustainability is key to the long-term success of companies, and its impact on innovation and business models continues to grow and is becoming more visible. Companies that manage to balance profit with ecological, environmental, and social responsibility can achieve benefits on many levels.

Table 1. Impact of three groups of sustainability measures on innovation and business model.

Code	Group of Sustainability Measures	Impact on Innovation and Business Model
A1	Ecological–Environmental	Sustainability activities can help improve a company’s operational efficiency. Companies that minimize pollution emissions and waste generation, manage resources responsibly, and engage in local communities can achieve better financial results. Companies that effectively take into account environmental responsibility, social justice, and ethics in management reduce the operational risk of their business related to a possible failure to meet the increasing number of regulatory obligations and strict standards and regulations and may also gain a competitive advantage. On the other hand, inappropriate actions may lead to financial penalties, loss of permits and certificates, negative effects on the company’s image, or even a boycott of products or services.
A2	Social	Companies that are truly committed to sustainable development build a positive image, gain customer trust, and build long-term bonds with customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders. Customers increasingly prefer companies that care about the environment and the community, which may translate into greater loyalty, greater profits, and gaining the trust and loyalty of their business partners. Companies that pay attention to social aspects more easily attract and retain qualified employees, which is very valuable in the IT industry. As a result, employees are more engaged when they see that the company operates ethically and cares about their well-being and development.
A3	Economic and Financial	Sustainable development triggers innovation and encourages the search for new, more ecological and economical solutions. Companies that invest in research with sustainability in mind can create innovative products and services. Companies should go beyond traditional business models to not only survive on the market but also develop. It means that, in addition to improving products and services, they should develop new business models. Introducing innovation into a business model often means changes in the way companies create value.

presents a proposal of three classic levels of sustainable development in the fields of Ecological–Environmental, Social, and Economic and Financial, which software companies should keep in mind.

Table 2. Sustainable innovation dimensions and business model criteria.

Sustainable Innovation Dimension	Sustainable Innovation Dimension Code	Business Model Criterion	Business Model Criterion Code	Reference
Process	D1	Solution Provider	C1	[70]
		Lock-in	C2	[71]
Product	D2	Rent instead of Buy	C3	[72]
		Performance-based contracting (P4P), Pay Per Use	C4	[73]
		Subscription	C5	[74]
Organizational	D3	Crowdsourcing	C6	[75]
		Value-added reseller	C7	[76]
		Two-sided Market	C8	[77]
		Hidden Revenue	C9	[78]
Marketing	D4	Leverage Customer Data	C10	[79]
		Add-on	C11	[80]
		User Designed	C12	[81]
Political	D5	Target the Poor	C13	[82]
Conceptual	D6	Aikido Model	C14	[83]
		Digitization	C15	[84]
Social	D7	Servitization	C16	[85]
		Open Business Model	C17	[86]
		Make More Of It	C18	[87]
Technological	D8	Cybersecurity orientation	C19	[88]
		Virtualization, Dockerization orientation	C20	[89]

presents a list of eight types of innovations based on the literature [1,10,11,13] containing twenty criteria with business models that help in assessing the degree of implementation of the goals of sustainable innovation.

The interrelationships between the eight types of innovation and the sustainability of IT companies are presented below.

Process innovations (D1) play an important role in the sustainable development of IT companies. They influence process efficiency, allowing companies to optimize internal processes as well as work management and organization. Examples include reorganization of the company structure, automation, or the introduction of new management tools. It is worth emphasizing that process innovations not only increase efficiency but also contribute to the creation of more sustainable practices in companies. Therefore, companies should actively seek opportunities to optimize their processes to achieve a balance between efficiency and sustainability. Through process innovations, companies can reduce energy consumption and waste, use more ecological technologies, improve efficiency, reduce losses, and minimize the consumption of equipment resources, which translates into a reduction in companies’ impact on the environment, which is crucial for sustainable development. In the field of social responsibility, they enable the creation of innovative organizational solutions that can contribute to improving working conditions for employees. Process innovations also contribute to creating a culture of innovation in the organization. This is crucial for long-term success and sustainable development. Better management methods and the opportunity for employees to develop competences and have an influence on the company help to maintain employee loyalty and satisfaction. In the long term, they ensure market success because companies that invest in process innovations can survive and develop, and effective organizational structures allow for better adaptation to market changes. The flexibility of companies is important in the context of sustainable development because it allows them to respond faster to new challenges. Process innovations often require cooperation with other entities. By creating partnerships with non-governmental organizations, other companies, and research institutions, companies support sustainable development.

Product innovation (D2) allows companies to create more effective technological solutions. By optimizing processes, reducing costs, and minimizing the use of resources, companies can contribute to sustainable development. Creating innovative products can contribute to improving the quality of life in a society. Companies that care about social aspects can provide products that meet people’s real needs. At the same time, product innovations can lead to greener solutions. Examples include IT products and systems, server rooms with lower energy consumption, those that use renewable sources or are easier to recycle, and the use of environmentally friendly materials. Companies that invest in product innovations by creating new systems and products with sustainable development in mind invest in the future. Innovative products allow companies to stand out in the market. The use of new technologies, creative solutions, and unique functions can attract customers’ attention and build brand recognition. Product innovations in IT allow us to better adapt the offer to customers’ expectations. By introducing new functions, improvements, or innovative solutions, companies can better meet the needs of their customers. IT product innovations can also open up new market segments. Companies can create products that meet new needs or solve current problems in innovative ways. The introduction of digital IT product passports can help companies improve product management throughout the supply chain. In the IT industry, product innovations often support digitalization. New software, applications, or hardware solutions can contribute to more effective work, saving time and resources. However, it is worth remembering that product innovations require financial and time expenditures. Companies should carefully assess the benefits and risks associated with their implementation. In the context of the IT industry, product innovations currently support primarily the development of new applications, analytical tools, security systems, and artificial intelligence solutions.

Organizational innovation (D3) plays an important role in creating sustainable business models. By influencing the development of sustainable practices in the IT industry, they enable optimization and more efficient use of resources. Creating innovative organizational solutions can contribute to improving working conditions for employees because better management and the opportunity to develop competences and influence the company promote employee loyalty and satisfaction. Additionally, companies that care about social aspects tend to create fair and ethical workplaces. Organizational innovations also increase employee engagement in the workplace and facilitate long-term success, as effective organizational structures allow for better adaptation to market changes. To sum up, organizational innovations have a positive impact on the sustainable development of IT companies, combining economic benefits with care for employees, society, and the environment.

Marketing innovations (D4) allow IT companies to stand out in the market. The use of new technologies, creative methods of communicating with customers, and unique promotional tactics attracts attention and builds brand recognition. When companies promote a more sustainable product offering, it attracts customer attention, builds trust, and helps build an authentic company image. Marketing innovations enable maintaining better contact with the target group and can also contribute to customer involvement in sustainable development issues. Due to its original advertising strategies, the company can communicate more effectively with customers, understand their needs, and adapt its offer. On the other hand, educational campaigns, loyalty programs, or social campaigns can attract customers’ attention and involvement and influence their purchasing habits, directing them towards products with a lower impact on the environment. Modern marketing is based on the personalization of content and messages. Innovations in this area allow you to more precisely target your message, which is crucial in a sustainable business model. Additionally, companies that invest in marketing innovations have better prospects for survival and development on the market. Creating the image of a trendsetting company can help secure the company’s future in times of market turmoil. The use of modern technologies in marketing allows for better data analysis. This, in turn, gives companies additional insight into consumer behavior and enables them to make more accurate decisions. Companies that introduce marketing innovations can set trends in the industry, which allows for flexible responses to changes and faster development. Companies should bear in mind that marketing innovations may be expensive and require expanding competences. In the context of the ICT industry, marketing innovations can primarily support digital transformation, the development of new products and services, and a better understanding of customers’ needs.

Policy innovations (D5), while somewhat unusual in the context of sustainability, can also impact IT companies. General government policy may introduce regulations regarding sustainable development, such as the need to use modern technologies, reduce CO₂ emissions, recycle, or make efficient use of resources. IT companies must adapt their operations to these regulations, which leads to more sustainable operations. On the other hand, state policy can promote investments in sustainable development, e.g., through subsidies or tax breaks, and IT companies can use these funds to develop sustainable projects. The IT industry can also engage in political activities, e.g., lobbying for sustainable development, and cooperate with non-governmental organizations and other companies, including international partnerships, which can contribute to introducing positive changes. In conclusion, policy innovations can impact the sustainable development of IT, both through regulation and financial support, or through actions for change.

Conceptual innovations (D6) are new ideas that can change the face of computer science. Creating visions of the future, such as artificial intelligence, quantum computers, and autonomous vehicles and factories, can contribute to sustainable development. Conceptual innovations always require research, development, and experimentation. Working on new concepts usually results in access to more effective technologies and lower resource consumption. Conceptual innovations can also change social expectations and attitudes. An example is the vision of fully intelligent cities that combine technology with care for the environment and the well-being of residents. IT companies that invest in conceptual innovations have the opportunity to shape the future, and thus it is an investment in sustainable development. As a result, conceptual innovations have a positive impact on the development of sustainable business models in the ICT industry, combining economic benefits with concern for society and the environment.

Social innovations (D7) can change social expectations and attitudes, directing them towards protecting the environment and improving the lives of employees and residents. They also encourage IT companies to actively listen to and cooperate with local communities. Jointly developed solutions can contribute to the development of products and services that better respond to the real needs of users. Social innovations promote and assume equal opportunities for all entities in economic and social life. IT companies can create business models that take into account the diversity of society, eliminate barriers, and strive for fair access to technology. Social innovation facilitates IT companies integrate business goals with social values. Business models that combine social and environmental aspects are a factor in achieving long-term market success for companies. Social innovations should help eliminate barriers to access to technology, and IT companies can create business models that take into account the needs of various social groups.

Technological innovations (D8) have a significant impact on the development of sustainable business models for companies in the ICT industry. Implementing digitalization in business processes and document circulation not only accelerates companies’ operations and increases their efficiency, but also plays a key role in promoting sustainable development. Nevertheless, eco-innovation and the pursuit of operational efficiency and profitability also ensure that business practices are fair, ethical, and bring long-term value to all stakeholders. Additionally, technological innovations promote fairness, equality, and well-being among workers and local communities. One of the technologies, artificial intelligence, through process optimization, data analysis, and task automation, can contribute to sustainable development in many sectors of the economy and minimize the negative impact of business activities on the environment. Introducing digitalization into various aspects of business operations opens up new opportunities for sustainable development, offering tools and solutions that can reduce carbon footprints, optimize resource use, and increase operational efficiency. From this perspective, technological innovations are an integral part of business strategies that allow companies to achieve a balance between economic, environmental, and social needs.

Table 2, in addition to eight types of innovations, also presents, based on literature research, twenty innovative business models selected for IT companies that support achieving the goals of sustainable innovation. Thus, the material in Table 2 answers RQ1.

In the C1 Solution Provider model, the IT solution provider offers comprehensive delivery of both products and ordered services. It also tends to provide service and after-sales support contracts. The aim is to provide clients with a holistic package that ensures their business expectations are met, allowing them to fully concentrate on their core business and often improving performance.

The C2 Lock-in model is characterized by a deep dependence of the customer on the supplier to an extent that makes it difficult to change the supplier or product. It is often implemented based on an exclusivity agreement that requires the use of a specific supplier.

In the C3 model, Rent instead of Buy customers rent products instead of buying them. This allows access to solutions that may be expensive to purchase, without the need for a long-term capital commitment. In IT, the shift in ownership from ownership to access to services results from the constant development of technology and changes in customer attitudes, as well as environmental issues.

In the C4 Performance-based contracting (P4P) model, Pay Per Use, IT providers receive remuneration from clients depending on the achievement of specific performance goals. The valuation is based primarily on the qualitative assessment of the results obtained and not only on the quantitative assessment of the services provided.

The C5 Subscription model means fixed periodic fees for access to and use of a product or service. Customers pay periodically (e.g., monthly or annually) to continue using a given product or service. This approach is often used in the Platform as a Service, Infrastructure as a Service, and Software as a Service models.

The C6 Crowdsourcing model involves obtaining and using information or skills from a group of people to make products or services available. In the IT industry, it is often used to use the knowledge and skills of the online community of freelancers.

The C7 Value-added reseller (VAR) model, which is important in the IT industry, means that the company provides added value by adapting and making other companies’ IT products, equipment, or services more attractive and reselling them to end customers.

The C8 Two-sided Market model involves the use of various network economic platforms in which two different groups of market participants provide benefits to each other.

The C9 Hidden Revenue model means that companies offer free services to customers on their platforms. The company generates revenue on its platform through fees from third parties, usually advertising. Consequently, customers use the company’s services directly and free of charge.

The C10 Leverage Customer Data means strategically using customer information to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Analyzing customer information clears the path to making strategic decisions based on reliable data, improving the quality of service, increasing the level of customer loyalty, adapting the company’s offer to customer expectations, and increasing company profits.

The C11 Add-on model means that the company’s basic offer has an attractive price, but at the same time, customers can choose from several additional options that increase the final price of the offer.

The C12 User-Designed model enables the joint operation of the manufacturer and recipients to develop final versions of products. Cooperation usually takes place through online platforms where customers have the opportunity to design and order, and the manufacturer, without incurring excessive costs, has the opportunity to precisely target the tastes of recipients with its products or services.

C13 Target the Poor is about providing low-cost products and services to low-income people, who make up a large portion of the world’s population.

The C14 Aikido model stands for a set of completely non-standard activities, opposite to traditional sales activities. The martial art of Aikido is based on “fighting without fighting”. In the business model, this means that the manufacturer, seller and customers respect each other and cooperate to achieve the expected success.

The C15 Digitization model is both the process of transforming information from a physical format into a digital format and offering the entire range of business services and process support exclusively in a digital form.

The C16 Servitization model is a strategy aimed at promoting the sale of services that customers could pay for rather than purchasing new equipment to perform services.

Open Business model C17 means cooperation with customers and partners in creating systems as well as innovative sharing of manufacturer’s resources with other players on the business market.

In the C18 Make More Of It, companies use their competence resources to generate additional revenues, offering them as a service to external entities. On the one hand, it is a more effective use of the company’s internal resources, and on the other hand, it is an opportunity to build a high market position based on opinions about the company, which is innovative and leading in the IT industry in terms of competences.

The C19 Cybersecurity orientation model means focusing an organization on protecting its systems, databases, and infrastructure from digital attacks. This process is carried out by analyzing risk, implementing security measures, monitoring incidents, educating employees, and providing services to external entities in this area.

The C20 Virtualization and Dockerization orientation model refers to the company’s philosophy in which it creates virtual versions of its IT systems, servers, mass storage devices, or network resources in place of their physical counterparts. Additionally, the company creates, deploys, and runs applications using Docker containers, which are less resource-intensive alternatives to virtual machines. By combining both strategies, you can run multiple systems on one physical server, resulting in cost savings, resource optimization, and easier management.

3. Solution Methodology

In this work, a two-stage hybrid MCDM is used. In the first step, the DEMATEL method is used, the results of which are used in the second step by the PROMETHEE II methodology. The combination of both methods enables simultaneous multi-criteria use in the evaluation of quantitative and qualitative methods. While DEMATEL assesses the interdependence of parameters in the first step of the model [90], PROMETHEE II offers the possibility of comparing the analyzed alternatives in the second step [91]. The method used makes it possible to analyze and create rankings of the levels of innovation and sustainable business models in Table 1 and Table 2.

In DEMATEL, n experts in a given domain express their judgments about k parameters. Experts rate the level of impact of the criteria on a scale of 0–4, where 4 means the greatest mutual influence and 0 means no influence. As a result, n partial initial influence matrices ${\mathbf{Z}}_m$ are obtained:

$${\mathit{Z}}_m=[z_{ij}^m{]}_{k\times k}$$

(1)

Then a group direct influence matrix Z is obtained:

$$\mathit{Z}=\frac{1}{n}\sum _{m=1}^n\left[z_{ij}^m\right],i,j=1\dots k$$

(2)

The next matrix is the normalized direct influence matrix X:

$$\mathit{X}=[x_{ij}{]}_{k\times k}=\frac{\mathit{Z}}{v}$$

(3)

where v can be obtained as follows:

$$v=max\left(\underset{1\le i\le k}{max}\sum _{j=1}^k{z}_{ij},\underset{1\le j\le k}{max}\sum _{i=1}^k{z}_{ij}\right)$$

(4)

The next matrix in the DEMATEL is the total influence matrix $\mathit{T}$

$$\mathit{T}=\mathit{X}(\mathit{I}-\mathit{X}{)}^{-1},\mathrm{and}\underset{r\to \infty }{lim}{\mathit{X}}^r={\left[0\right]}_{k\times k}$$

(5)

Consequently, vectors the following C i R are determined:

$$\begin{gathered} \mathit{C}=[c_j{]}_{1\times k}={\left[\sum _{j=1}^k{t}_{ij}\right]}_{1\times k}^T \\ \mathit{R}=[r_i{]}_{k\times 1}={\left[\sum _{i=1}^k{t}_{ij}\right]}_{k\times 1} \end{gathered}$$

(6)

Then, an indicator and a relationship vector $\mathit{R}-\mathit{C}$ are determined, which indicate the net impact that the parameters have on the analyzed system. When the value of the indicator is greater than zero, the criterion affects the remaining criteria and the analyzed system. A relationship index less than zero means that on criterion i other criteria have influence. The index and position vector $\mathit{R}+\mathit{C}$ is also determined. The higher its value, the greater the importance of a given parameter in the system.

At the beginning of PROMETHEE II, a modified priority vector W is determined [92].

$$W_i=\left(r_i+c_i\right){\left(\sum _{i=1}^k\left(r_i+c_i\right)\right)}^{-1},i=1,\dots ,k$$

(7)

The deviation of expert judgments is determined [93]:

$$f_j\left(d,e\right)=h_j\left(d\right)-h_j\left(e\right)$$

(8)

The preference functions $P_j$ taking into account the weight $w_j$ of a given parameter are summed using the following:

$$\pi \left(i,l\right)={\sum }_{j=1}^k{P}_j\left(i,l\right)w_j$$

(9)

Then, the following parameters are determined for the analyzed instruments: entering flow, leaving flow, and net outranking flow. The entering flow indicates a limitation of the analyzed instrument. The leaving flow indicates its power. The difference between these parameters is net outranking flow, which is used to determine the final instrument ranking.

The entering flow is as follows:

$${\Phi }^{-}\left(i\right)=\frac{1}{n-1}\sum _{l=1}^k\pi \left(l,i\right)$$

(10)

In turn, the leaving flow is as follows:

$${\Phi }^{+}\left(i\right)=\frac{1}{n-1}\sum _{l=1}^k\pi \left(i,l\right)$$

(11)

Finally, the final net outranking is obtained as follows:

$$\Phi \left(i\right)={\Phi }^{+}\left(i\right)-{\Phi }^{-}\left(i\right)$$

(12)

4. Results and Discussion

This chapter presents an example of the practical use of the presented methodology to assess sustainable innovations and business models for IT companies in the SME area. Based on literature research, a scheme for building rankings of twenty business model criteria related to eight dimensions of innovation and three groups of sustainable development instruments was proposed, the implementation of which could help IT companies in the SME sector achieve sustainable development goals. Thirteen experts were invited to cooperate. Three of them were specialists in the fields of numerical methods, meta-analyses, and expert decision support systems. Eight more people are presidents, management staff, and members of supervisory boards of SME companies from the Polish software industry. Two people are specialists in the theory of business management methods. In the first step of the DEMATEL methodology, each of the thirteen people assessed the mutual dependencies of pairs of all presented parameters on a scale of 0–4 (where 4 meant the greatest mutual influence) in the form of a set of initial-influence matrices ${\mathit{Z}}_m$. According to (2), the group direct influence matrix $\mathit{Z}$ is obtained. Then, using (3) and (5), respectively, the normalized direct influence matrix $\mathit{X}$ (

Table A1. Matrix $\mathit{X}$.

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	C8	C9	C10	C11	C12	C13	C14	C15	C16	C17	C18	C19	C20
C1	0	7.317	6.887	6.6	5.882	3.587	3.156	3.587	3.73	3.874	3.73	5.309	2.726	5.165	5.595	4.735	4.448	2.87	4.448	5.595
C2	6.887	0	7.174	6.887	6.026	3.874	4.304	3.874	3.3	4.304	4.448	4.735	2.87	4.304	5.882	4.878	5.309	3.73	4.735	6.6
C3	6.743	6.887	0	6.743	6.456	4.304	4.017	3.874	4.017	5.165	4.448	4.304	3.013	4.878	4.735	5.021	4.448	3.587	4.878	5.739
C4	5.021	5.021	4.591	0	5.309	4.448	4.304	4.591	5.021	4.591	4.735	4.448	2.87	4.878	5.021	4.735	4.161	4.017	4.735	5.882
C5	6.169	6.456	6.743	6.6	0	5.165	5.452	4.591	5.021	4.735	4.304	4.591	2.582	5.309	5.452	4.591	5.165	4.161	5.309	5.739
C6	2.87	3.443	4.017	3.587	2.87	0	2.87	2.726	2.439	2.87	2.87	2.582	3.013	3.156	3.443	2.87	3.013	3.013	3.73	3.874
C7	4.017	3.874	4.017	3.874	3.874	3.587	0	3.156	3.3	3.73	3.73	3.874	3.156	4.017	3.587	4.304	4.161	4.161	4.017	3.874
C8	2.87	3.443	3.73	3.73	3.3	3.156	3.013	0	3.156	3.587	3.156	3.73	2.87	3.874	3.3	3.874	3.587	3.013	3.874	3.443
C9	3.156	3.73	2.87	3.73	3.73	3.013	2.87	3.156	0	3.874	3.156	3.874	2.582	3.587	3.587	3.3	3.156	2.87	3.587	3.156
C10	3.156	3.443	3.587	3.874	3.156	3.156	3.013	3.443	3.73	0	3.874	3.443	3.3	3.443	3.874	3.587	3.3	3.3	3.874	4.017
C11	3.587	4.017	3.587	3.587	3.013	3.013	3.156	3.3	3.3	3.874	0	3.874	3.587	3.73	3.156	3.443	3.3	3.156	3.156	4.161
C12	4.735	4.878	5.165	5.309	4.878	4.591	4.735	4.448	4.735	4.448	4.591	0	4.017	4.735	4.591	4.591	5.021	4.591	5.165	5.595
C13	2.87	3.013	3.443	2.87	2.726	2.582	2.582	2.296	2.152	2.726	2.009	2.296	0	2.87	2.726	2.582	2.439	2.296	2.009	1.865
C14	3.73	3.874	3.874	3.443	3.73	3.3	3.156	3.587	3.013	3.156	3.3	3.443	3.73	0	3.443	3.874	3.73	3.874	4.017	4.448
C15	6.169	6.456	6.313	6.026	5.882	3.874	4.017	4.304	3.874	4.304	4.735	4.878	3.73	5.452	0	4.304	4.161	4.161	4.304	5.165
C16	5.165	4.878	5.309	4.017	4.161	4.017	4.735	4.591	4.161	4.878	4.735	4.448	3.443	4.878	4.448	0	4.735	4.591	5.452	5.309
C17	4.878	5.309	4.735	4.591	4.878	4.591	5.021	4.735	5.165	4.448	4.304	4.735	3.156	5.165	5.021	4.304	0	4.735	5.309	5.452
C18	3.73	3.587	3.874	3.73	3.587	2.87	2.726	2.87	3.013	3.156	3.443	3.73	2.87	4.017	3.73	3.013	3.156	0	3.156	3.013
C19	4.735	4.591	4.448	4.735	4.878	4.591	4.448	4.735	4.304	4.161	4.017	4.017	3.3	4.448	4.304	4.304	4.448	4.304	0	4.878
C20	6.026	6.313	5.882	6.026	6.313	4.161	4.735	5.452	5.309	5.739	5.165	4.878	3.874	5.309	5.165	4.304	4.735	5.165	5.452	0

in Appendix A) and total influence matrix $\mathit{T}$ (

Table A2. Matrix $\mathit{T}$.

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	C8	C9	C10	C11	C12	C13	C14	C15	C16	C17	C18	C19	C20
C1	2.057	2.824	2.775	2.753	2.568	2.042	2.016	2.079	2.079	2.202	2.127	2.324	1.685	2.445	2.447	2.262	2.233	1.963	2.340	2.613
C2	2.801	2.246	2.903	2.881	2.678	2.151	2.204	2.190	2.125	2.331	2.279	2.362	1.768	2.464	2.566	2.362	2.398	2.125	2.459	2.802
C3	2.747	2.849	2.192	2.828	2.677	2.159	2.146	2.157	2.158	2.375	2.245	2.289	1.755	2.478	2.428	2.342	2.287	2.080	2.437	2.686
C4	2.453	2.536	2.487	2.049	2.438	2.061	2.060	2.111	2.138	2.204	2.157	2.183	1.654	2.351	2.324	2.197	2.142	2.013	2.299	2.558
C5	2.786	2.904	2.917	2.908	2.159	2.314	2.352	2.300	2.326	2.418	2.312	2.396	1.781	2.605	2.576	2.385	2.433	2.209	2.562	2.778
C6	1.621	1.729	1.774	1.736	1.593	1.110	1.397	1.400	1.364	1.477	1.435	1.443	1.226	1.585	1.585	1.463	1.474	1.396	1.611	1.729
C7	2.005	2.060	2.064	2.051	1.957	1.689	1.352	1.677	1.680	1.807	1.757	1.813	1.435	1.933	1.860	1.844	1.828	1.735	1.900	2.014
C8	1.732	1.845	1.864	1.864	1.741	1.511	1.506	1.231	1.528	1.645	1.561	1.651	1.293	1.761	1.677	1.657	1.628	1.491	1.732	1.806
C9	1.723	1.835	1.750	1.829	1.746	1.468	1.463	1.507	1.192	1.640	1.530	1.634	1.241	1.700	1.672	1.573	1.558	1.448	1.672	1.744
C10	1.793	1.882	1.887	1.914	1.763	1.539	1.534	1.593	1.610	1.331	1.658	1.656	1.358	1.754	1.763	1.661	1.632	1.546	1.763	1.892
C11	1.822	1.923	1.877	1.877	1.739	1.516	1.538	1.570	1.560	1.693	1.275	1.686	1.377	1.769	1.687	1.638	1.622	1.523	1.687	1.895
C12	2.468	2.566	2.581	2.596	2.440	2.111	2.136	2.133	2.147	2.228	2.180	1.794	1.791	2.378	2.324	2.221	2.257	2.101	2.377	2.574
C13	1.374	1.433	1.468	1.415	1.337	1.159	1.164	1.149	1.129	1.242	1.142	1.198	0.762	1.324	1.289	1.220	1.204	1.125	1.221	1.295
C14	1.902	1.979	1.972	1.932	1.869	1.597	1.593	1.652	1.588	1.684	1.650	1.704	1.434	1.473	1.774	1.735	1.720	1.644	1.827	1.986
C15	2.659	2.772	2.748	2.725	2.589	2.088	2.114	2.164	2.111	2.263	2.239	2.308	1.798	2.496	1.939	2.245	2.228	2.102	2.349	2.595
C16	2.446	2.503	2.531	2.415	2.315	2.006	2.083	2.094	2.042	2.213	2.140	2.166	1.696	2.333	2.254	1.728	2.177	2.050	2.346	2.486
C17	2.476	2.600	2.537	2.526	2.435	2.106	2.157	2.155	2.182	2.223	2.149	2.242	1.708	2.413	2.359	2.190	1.775	2.110	2.386	2.556
C18	1.786	1.833	1.852	1.840	1.743	1.461	1.455	1.486	1.490	1.580	1.563	1.628	1.273	1.749	1.693	1.553	1.564	1.174	1.639	1.739
C19	2.313	2.379	2.356	2.383	2.288	1.983	1.980	2.029	1.977	2.063	1.993	2.043	1.616	2.205	2.154	2.058	2.069	1.947	1.742	2.352
C20	2.787	2.906	2.855	2.872	2.767	2.235	2.300	2.393	2.366	2.524	2.404	2.438	1.914	2.621	2.565	2.373	2.408	2.315	2.589	2.248

in Appendix A) were obtained. For a clearer illustration, the values in Table A1 in Appendix A are multiplied by 10³ and in Table A2 in Appendix A by 10¹.

$\mathit{T}$ matrix can be considered a composite of two submatrices: ${\mathit{T}}_D$ and ${\mathit{T}}_C$. In this approach, the submatrix ${\mathit{T}}_D$ is responsible for eight types of innovations, and ${\mathit{T}}_C$ is a submatrix mapping twenty types of business models. The relationship and position indicators (6) are presented in

Table 3. The position and relation indicators.

${\mathit{T}}_{\mathit{D}}$	${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{i}}$	${\mathit{c}}_{\mathit{i}}$	${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{i}}+{\mathit{c}}_{\mathit{i}}$	${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{i}}-{\mathit{c}}_{\mathit{i}}$	${\mathbf{T}}_{\mathit{C}}$	${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{i}}$	${\mathit{c}}_{\mathit{i}}$	${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{i}}+{\mathit{c}}_{\mathit{i}}$	${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{i}}-{\mathit{c}}_{\mathit{i}}$
D1	1.8607	1.7691	3.6297	0.0917	C1	4.5831	4.3750	8.9580	0.2081
					C2	4.8094	4.5604	9.3698	0.2490
D2	1.8683	1.7726	3.6408	0.0957	C3	4.7315	4.5388	9.2703	0.1928
					C4	4.4414	4.5395	8.9809	−0.0981
					C5	4.9422	4.2842	9.2265	0.6580
D3	1.3095	1.4557	2.7652	−0.1462	C6	3.0147	3.6306	6.6453	−0.6159
					C7	3.6462	3.6550	7.3012	−0.0089
					C8	3.2725	3.7071	6.9796	−0.4346
					C9	3.1925	3.6792	6.8717	−0.4868
D4	1.4908	1.5298	3.0205	−0.0390	C10	3.3529	3.9143	7.2672	−0.5614
					C11	3.3275	3.7795	7.1069	−0.4520
					C12	4.5402	3.8957	8.4359	0.6444
D5	0.9663	1.1966	2.1629	−0.2303	C13	2.4648	3.0565	5.5213	−0.5916
D6	1.6143	1.6355	3.2498	−0.0211	C14	3.4714	4.1836	7.6550	−0.7122
					C15	4.6532	4.0937	8.7469	0.5595
D7	1.6098	1.4983	3.1081	0.1114	C16	4.4022	3.8705	8.2727	0.5317
					C17	4.5286	3.8636	8.3922	0.6649
					C18	3.2101	3.6095	6.8196	−0.3993
D8	1.8163	1.67859	3.4949	0.1378	C19	4.1929	4.0938	8.2867	0.0992
					C20	4.9878	4.4347	9.4225	0.5531

. The position indicator $\mathit{R}+\mathit{C}$ determines the mutual hierarchy of parameters and the interconnections between them.

In Table 3, the values of position indicators for the dimension—innovation type D2 (Product) and the criterion—business model C20 (Virtualization, Dockerization orientation) are marked in bold orientation, which have the highest values of this indicator. Therefore, they are the most important parameters and the most closely related to other parameters. Introducing the ranking of sizes and arranging them according to decreasing position index and thus decreasing importance, the next size after D2 is D1 (Process) followed by D8 (Technological), D6 (Conceptual), D7 (Social), D4 (Marketing), and D3 (Organizational), and finally, the least important is D5 (Political). Among criteria—models of business—the next most important after C20 is C2 (Lock-in), followed by C3 (Rent instead of Buy), C5 (Subscription), C4 (Performance-based contracting P4P, Pay Per Use), C1 (Solution Provider), C15 (Digitization), C12 (User-Designed), C17 (Open Business Model), C19 (Cybersecurity orientation), and C16 (Servitization). Companies should include these criteria in their strategic plan for applying sustainable innovative business models. Next, criteria business models C14 (Aikido Model), C7 (Value-added reseller), C10 (Leverage Customer Data), C11 (Add-on), C8 (Two-sided Market), C9 (Hidden Revenue), C18 (Make More Of It), C6 (Crowdsourcing), and C13 (Target the Poor) recognized as having a smaller weight. However, the relationship indicator $\mathit{R}-\mathit{C}$ determines the mutual cause-and-effect relationships between the analyzed parameters. A value of the relationship indicator for a given parameter greater than zero means that it affects other criteria. A value of this indicator less than zero means that it receives influence from other criteria. Figure 1 contains position and relationship indicators for the submatrices ${\mathit{T}}_D$, i.e., the eight dimensions of innovation.

The highest positive value of the relationship indicator is found in the innovation dimension D8 (Technological) and, with a decreasing value of this indicator, in dimensions D7 (Social), D2 (Product), and D1 (Process). Thus, they are creators of influence on other innovations. The remaining dimensions have a negative relationship index value, which means that they are recipients of influences exerted by other innovations. The biggest taker is D5 innovation (Political). The recipients are also dimensions D3 (Organizational), D4 (Marketing), and D6 (Conceptual) with a negative relationship indicator. A similar graph of position and relationship indicators (Figure 2) can be created for twenty criteria—business models in the submatrix ${\mathit{T}}_C$.

Criterion C17 (Open Business Model) has the highest value of the relationship indicator greater than zero. It has the highest level of influence on other business models.

The decreasing value of this indicator is shown by C5 (Subscription), C12 (User-Designed), C15 (Digitization), C20 (Virtualization, Dockerization orientation), C16 (Servitization), C2 (Lock-in), C1 (Solution Provider), C3 (Rent instead of Buy), and C19 (Cybersecurity orientation).

Criterion C14 (Aikido Model) has the smallest and negative value of the relationship index and thus receives the greatest influence from other business models. The decreasing character of the recipient is noted by C6 (Crowdsourcing), C13 (Target the Poor), C10 (Leverage Customer Data), C9 (Hidden Revenue), C11 (Add-on), C8 (Two-sided Market), C18 (Make More Of It), C4 (Performance-based contracting P4P, Pay Per Use), and C7 (Value-added reseller).

Moving on to PROMETHEE II, it is necessary to determine (7) the vector W, which ultimately establishes the hierarchy of importance of the criteria—business models (

Table 4. Priority ranking of criteria.

Criterion	W	Rank
C1	56.152	6
C2	58.734	2
C3	58.110	3
C4	56.296	5
C5	57.835	4
C6	41.655	19
C7	45.767	13
C8	43.751	16
C9	43.075	17
C10	45.554	14
C11	44.549	15
C12	52.880	8
C13	34.610	20
C14	47.985	12
C15	54.829	7
C16	51.857	11
C17	52.606	9
C18	42.748	18
C19	51.944	10
C20	59.064	1

). For a clearer illustration, the values in Table 4 are multiplied by 10³.

For the purposes of the PROMETHEE II methodology, the same group of experts completed subsequent forms assessing the impact of the criteria on groups of sustainability on a scale of 1–5 (where 5 meant the best option). The results of all 13 expert forms after aggregation are presented in

Table 5. Aggregated measures.

Criterion	Group A1	Group A2	Group A3
C1	3.154	2.769	4
C2	3.462	2.923	4.692
C3	3.231	3.615	4.615
C4	4.077	2.231	3.154
C5	2.615	3.077	4.154
C6	2.615	3.231	2.846
C7	2.231	2.077	2.826
C8	2.154	3.462	2.769
C9	1.846	2.154	2.769
C10	2.462	1.846	2.615
C11	1.923	1.154	2.231
C12	2.923	3.846	3.308
C13	1.615	2.154	1.846
C14	3.538	1.923	1.462
C15	3.923	3.077	3.385
C16	3.077	3.615	2.769
C17	3.769	2.769	3.308
C18	2.077	1.462	1.308
C19	2.769	3.231	3.692
C20	4.769	4.154	3.308

.

The results in Table 5 reflect the degree of influence of business model criteria C1–C20 on individual groups of sustainability measures A1–A3. In this analysis, the example criterion C3 (Rent instead of Buy) has the greatest impact on sustainability measure A3 (Economic and Financial), with a rating of 4.615, the smallest measure is A1 (Ecological–Environmental) with a rating of 3.231. The A1 group (Ecological–Environmental group of sustainability measures) is most influenced by the C20 innovation criterion (Virtualization, Dockerization orientation). And, at the same time, it has the highest level of impact on all three sustainability groups. C13 (Target the Poor) has the least impact on A1. On the other hand, the A2 (Social) group is also most affected by C20 and the least by C11 (Add-on), which is the lowest level of impact among all sustainability groups, too. The last group of A3 (Economic and Financial) is most influenced by C2 (Lock-in) and the least by C18 (Make More Of It). On the basis of (8), the differences between individual groups of sustainability measures are determined and are presented in

Table A3. Deviation of sustainability measures.

Criterion	A1–A2	A1–A3	A2–A1	A2–A3	A3–A1	A3–A2
C1	0.385	−0.846	−0.385	−1.231	0.846	1.231
C2	0.539	−1.23	−0.539	−1.769	1.23	1.769
C3	−0.384	−1.384	0.384	−1	1.384	1
C4	1.846	0.923	−1.846	−0.923	−0.923	0.923
C5	−0.462	−1.539	0.462	−1.077	1.539	1.077
C6	−0.616	−0.231	0.616	0.385	0.231	−0.385
C7	0.154	−0.595	−0.154	−0.749	0.595	0.749
C8	−1.308	−0.615	1.308	0.693	0.615	−0.693
C9	−0.308	−0.923	0.308	−0.615	0.923	0.615
C10	0.616	−0.153	−0.616	−0.769	0.153	0.769
C11	0.769	−0.308	−0.769	−1.077	0.308	1.077
C12	−0.923	−0.385	0.923	0.538	0.385	−0.538
C13	−0.539	−0.231	0.539	0.308	0.231	−0.308
C14	1.615	2.076	−1.615	0.461	−2.076	−0.461
C15	0.846	0.538	−0.846	−0.308	−0.538	0.308
C16	−0.538	0.308	0.538	0.846	−0.308	−0.846
C17	1	0.461	−1	−0.539	−0.461	0.539
C18	0.615	0.769	−0.615	0.154	−0.769	−0.154
C19	−0.462	−0.923	0.462	−0.461	0.923	0.461
C20	0.615	1.461	−0.615	0.846	−1.461	−0.846

in Appendix A.

Differences in individual columns help in assessing the sustainability priority measures for individual criteria—business models. For example, for C9 and C10, the differences in columns A3–A1 have a positive value. This means that for both the C9 and C10 criteria, measure A3 is more favorable than A1. Additionally, the A3–A1 difference score of 0.923 for C9 and 0.153 for C10 means that A3 is more favorable for C9 than for C10. Within the entire table, the largest difference of 2.076 was determined for C14 in the A1–A3 column, which means that for this criterion, of all sustainability measures, A1 is the most beneficial compared to another group, in this case A3. Then, based on the characteristics of each criterion, preference functions and relationships with the group of sustainability measures are established for each criterion—the business model (

Table 6. Preference functions and groups of sustainability measures for criteria.

Criterion	Type of Preference Function	Characteristic	Unit	Group of Measures
C1 Solution Provider	2	Qualitative	-	A3
C2 Lock-in	2	Qualitative	-	A3
C3 Rent instead of Buy	1	Quantitative	Number of offered types	A3
C4 Performance-based contracting (P4P), Pay Per Use	2	Qualitative	-	A1
C5 Subscription	3	Quantitative	Percentage of income	A3
C6 Crowdsourcing	2	Qualitative	-	A2
C7 Value-added reseller	2	Qualitative	-	A3
C8 Two-sided Market	3	Quantitative	Number of offered platforms	A2
C9 Hidden Revenue	1	Quantitative	Number of cooperated companies	A3
C10 Leverage Customer Data	2	Qualitative	-	A3
C11 Add-on	3	Quantitative	Number of offered options	A3
C12 User-Designed	2	Qualitative	-	A2
C13 Target the Poor	2	Qualitative	-	A2
C14 Aikido Model	2	Qualitative	-	A1
C15 Digitization	2	Qualitative	-	A1
C16 Servitization	2	Qualitative	-	A2
C17 Open Business Model	3	Quantitative	Number of offered products and cooperative companies	A1
C18 Make More Of It	3	Quantitative	Percentage of income	A1
C19 Cybersecurity orientation	2	Qualitative	-	A3
C20 Virtualization, Dockerization	3	Quantitative	Number of used solutions	A3

).

Six types of functions are used [93] according to the type of preference function. Type 1 indicates a criterion without a threshold value. Type 2 is a qualitative criterion with a single cut-off threshold. Type 3 is a criterion with a linear distribution of preferences. Type 4 is a qualitative criterion with two threshold values. Type 5 is a quantitative criterion with two threshold values. Type 6 is a criterion with a statistically normal distribution of preferences. The parameter values depend on the type of criterion (qualitative or quantitative type) and were determined by experts (

Table A4. Parameter values and preference functions for measures.

Criterion	Parameter Value	A1–A2	A1–A3	A2–A1	A2–A3	A3–A1	A3–A2
C1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
C2	1	0	0	0	0	1	1
C3	0	0	0	1	0	1	1
C4	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
C5	1	0	0	0.462	0	1	1
C6	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
C7	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
C8	1	0	0	1	0.693	0.615	0
C9	0	0	0	1	0	1	1
C10	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
C11	1	0.769	0	0	0	0.308	1
C12	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
C13	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
C14	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
C15	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
C16	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
C17	1	1	0.461	0	0	0	0.539
C18	2	0.307	0.385	0	0.077	0	0
C19	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
C20	2	0.307	0.731	0	0.423	0	0

in Appendix A). A parameter value of 2 means a high probability of applying the established group of measures for the criterion; a value of 0 means a low probability of applying the adopted group of measures for the criterion. The preference functions (9) are summed up, the result of which is presented in

Table A5. Summed preference functions.

Criterion	W	A1–A2	A1–A3	A2–A1	A2–A3	A3–A1	A3–A2
C1	56.152	0	0	0	0	0	56.152
C2	58.734	0	0	0	0	58.734	58.734
C3	58.110	0	0	58.110	0	58.110	58.110
C4	56.296	56.296	0	0	0	0	0
C5	57.835	0	0	26.720	0	57.835	57.835
C6	41.655	0	0	0	0	0	0
C7	45.767	0	0	0	0	0	0
C8	43.751	0	0	43.751	30.319	26.907	0
C9	43.075	0	0	43.075	0	43.075	43.075
C10	45.554	0	0	0	0	0	0
C11	44.549	34.258	0	0	0	13.721	44.549
C12	52.880	0	0	0	0	0	0
C13	34.610	0	0	0	0	0	0
C14	47.985	47.985	47.985	0	0	0	0
C15	54.829	0	0	0	0	0	0
C16	51.857	0	0	0	0	0	0
C17	52.606	52.606	24.251	0	0	0	28.355
C18	42.748	13.124	16.458	0	3.292	0	0
C19	51.944	0	0	0	0	0	0
C20	59.064	18.133	43.176	0	24.984	0	0

in Appendix A 11. For a clearer illustration, the values in Table A5 in Appendix A are multiplied by 10³. Based on equations (10–12), entering flow, leaving flow, and net outranking flow are determined. The results collected in

Table 7. Ranking of groups of sustainability measures on innovations and business model.

Group	Leaving Flow ${\mathit{\Phi }}^{+}\left(\mathit{i}\right)$	Entering Flow ${\mathit{\Phi }}^{-}\left(\mathit{i}\right)$	Net Flow $\mathit{\Phi }\left(\mathit{i}\right)$	Rank
A1 Ecological–Environmental	354.27	430.04	−75.77	3
A2 Social	230.25	569.21	338.96	2
A3 Economic and Financial	605.19	190.48	414.73	1

enable the creation of a group of measures for ranking. For a clearer illustration, the values in Table 7 are multiplied by 10³.

The final ranking was based on the net outranking flow. The higher the value of this parameter, the higher the position of the group of measures in the ranking. In turn, the entering flow and the leaving flow indicate the strength and weakness of a given group, among other measures, respectively.

Therefore, the final order obtained from PROMETHEE II is determined in such a way that the most important group is A3 (Economic and Financial), next in order is A2 (Social), and finally A1 (Ecological–Environmental).

Taking into account the presented rankings, software companies from the SME sector that would like to introduce innovations and sustainable business models should pay attention first to economic issues (A3), which will also result in ecological and cost-effective solutions. To this end, companies should go beyond the established patterns and create innovative solutions, as well as improve current products and services. The four most important criteria for business models at this economic level are C20, C2, C3, and C5. Apart from them, there are also the following in this group: C1, C19, C7, C10, C11, and C9. Taking the criteria into account, companies should pay attention to virtualization and dockerization, thanks to which they can establish an energy-efficient, TCO-reducing model of multiple application instances on a single server with the same level of security. It is also worth trying to build customer dependence, loyalty, and attachment to your products while offering long-term contracts that are beneficial to both parties. Companies should also transform the offer of using their systems from the classic license model towards permanent rental and periodic subscription fees. Additionally, companies should pay attention to offering a comprehensive range of products and ordered services while at the same time making the offer more attractive by offering above-standard added value for the customer. The offer should be diversified with many other options that customers can choose from. If possible, it is worth offering free services to customers, and their costs should be covered by partner companies.

The next group in the ranking is A2 (Social). Companies that engage in sustainable development care for the environment and local communities; thus, they build a positive image among customers and gain trust, which translates into greater loyalty and profits. As part of their internal processes, IT companies that attach importance to the social sphere usually attract qualified and valuable employees more easily. In this group, the four most important criteria are C12, C8, C6, and C13. Taking into account the order of criteria, companies should pay attention to being close to their customers and ensure that the development of their own products is based on the precise expectations and requirements received from customers. To this end, companies should develop platforms that can connect both parties, enabling sellers to sell and buyers to formulate demand for services and products. As part of their close cooperation with the market, companies should also try to use the knowledge and skills of the Internet community around the company. Companies’ products and services should be offered at prices that also make them accessible to low-income people, who are usually a large group of people in communities.

The last group is A1 (Ecological–Environmental). Sustainable development contributes to increasing the efficiency of the company’s operations. Moreover, activities aimed at minimizing pollutant emissions and waste generation are usually carried out by companies that manage their own resources responsibly and can achieve better financial results. Taking environmental requirements into account minimizes the risk of penalties, bans, and product boycotts, and thus introduces business security and the possibility of gaining a competitive advantage. In this group, the four most important criteria are C4, C15, C17, and C14. Companies should focus on offering and providing customers with IT products and services priced primarily in terms of performance, not just quantity. Enterprises should strive to conduct the entire chain of business services in a purely digital form, from offer through purchase to fulfilment and delivery. IT entities should conclude partnership agreements and include external entities in the process of creating products and services, as well as look for innovative methods of sharing resources with other players on the business market. Moreover, in terms of sales, methods should be non-standard and innovative, which helps to create and control your own part of the market.

It is worth noting that the results presented in this paper were obtained using hybrid MCDM. Despite many analytical methodologies from the MCDM group being relatively user-friendly for users from the scientific world, they are not often assimilated in business applications. In the process of strategy assessment, the business sector most often looks for support, not necessarily by using multi-criteria methods, but above all with tools that are quick and easy to implement and later operationally use, even at the expense of the quality of the received assessments and rankings supporting decision-making.

The usefulness of the MCDM methodology presented in the article can be verified and compared with other strategy assessment methods and tools that are often used in business. The most popular ones include: SWOT analysis, Balanced Scorecard, Business Lean Canvas, Unique Value Proposition Canvas, Porter’s Five Forces Analysis, Value Stream Mapping, PESTEL Analysis, Scenario Method, Cost Analysis, Strategic Group Map, Key Success Factors Analysis, Monitoring Competitive Actions, Market Trend Analysis, Key Performance Indicators Analysis, and Benchmarking.

An additional factor that may determine companies’ choice of a specific group of methods is the possibility of easy presentation of results in graphic form [94].

After choosing a strategy, the one that is implemented should be monitored for its effectiveness. For this purpose, analytical tools, market and competition analysis, performance indicators, and various customer satisfaction survey methods are most often used.

Selected studies confirm the obtained results and recommendations for the most important levels: C20 virtualization and dockerization in terms of business models, D2 product innovations, and the A3 group (Economic and Financial) in the sustainability areas.

The authors of [95] state that there is currently a significant increase in the use and importance of virtualization technology in manufacturing companies, industry, and critical systems. However, dockerization, or its broader equivalent, containerization, is a promising but not yet fully mature technology for industrial use.

The authors of the work [96], based on over 1100 European companies from seven countries, state the primary importance of product innovations and their relationship with sustainability orientation.

All three sustainability areas (Ecological–Environmental, Economic and Financial, and Social) are interconnected and together contribute to the sustainable development of companies. However, research [97] shows that financial sustainability is perceived as a key control indicator for companies. Additionally, investing in companies with high financial sustainability leads to above-standard returns on investments in the financial market.

5. Conclusions

In the modern world, software companies are looking for their market niches and ways to build market advantage and effective economic models. One of the methods to solve these business needs is to implement innovations and new business models and take into account the levels of sustainable development. However, this approach also involves another round of searching for the right path that takes these parameters into account. Implementing changes in software companies is usually an expensive process. Therefore, in such cases, company management boards always face a difficult decision: whether not to change the current priorities, hoping that despite the market turmoil, the currently used model will be the correct one, or to be brave and change the priorities. The article provides management staff with a tool that increases the chance of making the right strategic business decisions and can provide a set of tips in the process of transforming business models.

In the context of research value and novelty elements, this paper presents a framework for the simultaneous mathematical evaluation of innovation, business models, and sustainability. The proposed template fills the scientific gap and contains eight categories of innovation, twenty modern business models, and three levels of sustainable development developed for the needs of software companies. Elements of novelty and scientific purpose are also brought in by the hybrid MCDM to evaluate and rank the elements of the proposed scheme.

In the first stage, based on the DEMATEL method, rankings of relationship indicators and positions of eight levels of innovation and twenty business model criteria are obtained, as well as a weight vector of innovative business model criteria, which are used in the second stage of PROMETHEE II to create a related ranking of three levels of sustainable development.

Based on the results obtained, IT companies should take into account the rankings and the development scenario presented in the article in their plans. Answering RQ2 and RQ3, companies should first focus on implementing solutions from the economic perspective of sustainable development (A3). In the context of innovation, these should primarily be product (D2), process (D1), and technological (D8) innovations, as well as business models combining system virtualization (C20), building customer loyalty (C2), and long-term product and service rental contracts (C3), as well as offering a comprehensive offer with added value for customers and many options to choose from (C5).

Then, enterprises should move to the stage of implementing conceptual (D6), social (D7), and marketing (D4) innovations, taking into account the social perspective (A2) of sustainable development. Business models in this area should include bringing the software manufacturer closer to its customers and listening to their needs in order to precisely meet their business needs (C12). Internet platforms that connect all sides of the market game (C8), embracing, in addition to the software producer and customers, the online community around the company (C6), are useful in this respect. IT products and services should be offered in various price segments (C13).

At the end of the process, in terms of the ecological perspective (A1) of sustainable development, companies should implement innovations in the organizational (D3) and political (D5) spheres. Business models should focus on providing customers with IT products and services offered in terms of performance and not be settled according to the classic quantitative approach (C4). Companies ought to offer a completely digital process flow from the offer to the implementation of products and services (C15). Furthermore, they should develop cooperation with external partners on various levels (C17) and look for unconventional sales methods (C14).

The presented MCDM model, which enables simultaneous analysis and development of rankings of the importance of the three groups of parameters: innovation, business models, and sustainable development, was adapted for the purposes of this article for software producing companies. The proposed method is flexible, and further research work may be aimed at extending the scheme to other sectors of IT companies, depending on their specialization and fields of activity. First of all, you should consider IT service providers, which deal with IT infrastructure management, technical support, and creating IT solutions for customers. Another large group of companies are distributors and integrators, which distribute computer hardware, software, and IT services and offer comprehensive solutions to customers. The next group are companies from the cloud computing sector specializing in providing cloud services, such as hosting, data storage, or cloud computing.

The IT industry is constantly developing dynamically, and in response to growing market needs, companies often change their business profiles. As a result, the material presented in this article may be attractive to decision-makers in this group who are faced with the decision to transform their own businesses. However, the material can also be adapted outside the area of IT companies, primarily for production companies in the area of modern technologies. Each time, dedicated innovation dimensions and business model criteria should be developed for analysis.

In the context of the limitations of the proposed method, despite the fact that it is relatively easy to implement, attention should be paid to developing an even more accessible way for business managers to present the results and partial steps to reach the recommended indications. It is also vital to work on limiting the influence of subjective expert assessments at the beginning of the proposed methodology in favor of other multi-criteria methods and on conducting a sensitivity analysis.