Computer-Supported Strategic Decision Making for Ecosystems Creation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Viability (V) is the financial return. It is generally measured as the expected net present value of cash flows or the percentage of return according to the investment amount. Milhomem and Dantas [14] provide an overview of current developments in methodologies for the project portfolio selection problem (PPSP) to measure risk-return performance.
- Feasibility (F) is the technical consideration of the solution, assessing whether the ecosystem can realistically be implemented given the current technological, logistical, and expertise-related resources. Feasibility requires aligning technological capabilities with strategic objectives, considering logistical constraints, and evaluating the compatibility of potential partnerships or technologies. Menold et al. [7] elaborates on the importance of measuring feasibility, especially in supply chain management.
- Sustainability (S) encompasses the economical, environmental and social dimensions (including ethical and governance aspects). Sustainability ensures that the ecosystem adheres to corporate social responsibility standards and aligns with long-term environmental and social goals. This factor is increasingly crucial in strategic decision making due to growing regulatory pressures and stakeholder expectations about sustainable practices. This is a hot topic where Haessler [18] and Chernev and Blair [19] sets the importance of considering environmental, social, and governance factors of the corporate sustainability strategy.
2. Related Work
2.1. CEOs Deciding the Creation of Ecosystems
2.2. AI in Strategic Decision Making for Ecosystems
2.3. Gaps on the Application of AI in Strategic Decision Making
3. Mathematical Model
- Desirability constraint: The desirability level of the portfolio must meet a predefined threshold, .
- Sustainability constraint: The sustainability level of the portfolio must meet a specific threshold, .
- Technical feasibility constraint: The portfolio must meet a certain technical feasibility level, .
- Budget constraint: The total percentage of the budget invested across all projects should not exceed the available budget.
- Portfolio size constraint: The number of projects in the portfolio must be within user-defined limits, and .
- Minimum/maximum investment constraints: If project i is included in the portfolio, a minimum investment must be made, and at most a maximum investment is allowed.
4. Solving Approach
Listing 1. Define problem parameters. |
Listing 2. Objective function and constraints. |
Listing 3. Solve the optimization problem. |
5. Computational Experiments and Results
5.1. Creation of the Database for the Experiment
5.2. Analysis of Results
Managerial Insights
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Yang, T.K.; Yan, M.R. The corporate shared value for sustainable development: An ecosystem perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Autio, E. Orchestrating ecosystems: A multi-layered framework. Innovation 2022, 24, 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buehring, J.; Bishop, P.C. Foresight and design: New support for strategic decision making. She Ji J. Des. Econ. Innov. 2020, 6, 408–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Q.; He, Z.; Duan, S.; Zhong, Y. Multi-objective interval portfolio optimization modeling and solving for margin trading. Swarm Evol. Comput. 2022, 75, 101141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loke, Z.X.; Goh, S.L.; Kendall, G.; Abdullah, S.; Sabar, N.R. Portfolio Optimisation Problem: A Taxonomic Review of Solution Methodologies. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 33100–33120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rădulescu, M.; Rădulescu, C. Project portfolio selection models and decision support. Stud. Inform. Control 2001, 10, 275–286. [Google Scholar]
- Menold, J.; Simpson, T.W.; Jablokow, K.W. The Prototype for X (PFX) framework: Assessing the impact of PFX on desirability, feasibility, and viability of end Designs. In Proceedings of the International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Charlotte, NC, USA, 21–24 August 2016; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 50190, p. V007T06A040. [Google Scholar]
- Urli, B.; Terrien, F. Project portfolio selection model, a realistic approach. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2010, 17, 809–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sumar, A.; Karlsson, J. Exploring Strategic Decision-Making: A Qualitative Study of How Top Management Respond to Economic Turbulence. Bachelor Thesis, Jonkoping University, International Business School, Jonkoping, Sweden, 2022. Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1665675/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2024).
- Markowitz, H.M. Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1959. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Sobai, K.M.; Pokharel, S.; Abdella, G.M. Perspectives on the Capabilities for the Selection of Strategic Projects. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- West, D.; Dellana, S.; Qian, J. Neural network ensemble strategies for financial decision applications. Comput. Oper. Res. 2005, 32, 2543–2559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adner, R.; Kapoor, R. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strateg. Manag. J. 2010, 31, 306–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milhomem, D.A.; Dantas, M.J.P. Analysis of New Approaches Used in Portfolio Optimization: A Systematic. Evol. Memetic Comput. Proj. Portf. Sel. Sched. 2021, 26, 125. [Google Scholar]
- Lopez, C.A.; Castillo, L.F. Value creation system in the connected home ecosystem. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2020, 11, 4409–4419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnum, C.M.; Palmer, L.A. More than a feeling: Understanding the desirability factor in user experience. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–15 April 2010; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 4703–4716. [Google Scholar]
- Benedek, J.; Miner, T. Measuring Desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting. Proc. Usability Prof. Assoc. 2002, 2003, 57. [Google Scholar]
- Haessler, P. Strategic decisions between short-term profit and sustainability. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chernev, A.; Blair, S. Doing well by doing good: The benevolent halo of corporate social responsibility. J. Consum. Res. 2015, 41, 1412–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adner, R. Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 39–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vera, D.; Tabesh, P.; Velez-Castrillon, S.; Kachra, A.; Werner, S. Improvisational decision making: Context, antecedents, and outcomes. In The Routledge Companion to Improvisation in Organizations; Routledge: London, UK, 2024; pp. 144–163. [Google Scholar]
- Shepherd, N.G.; Rudd, J.M. The influence of context on the strategic decision-making process: A review of the literature. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2014, 16, 340–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adner, R.; Kapoor, R. Right tech, wrong time. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2016, 94, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adner, R. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 98. [Google Scholar]
- Clarysse, B.; Wright, M.; Bruneel, J.; Mahajan, A. Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 1164–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobides, M.G.; Cennamo, C.; Gawer, A. Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 2255–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, F.; Feng, N.; Yang, S.; Zhao, Q. A conceptual framework of two-stage partner selection in platform-based innovation ecosystems for servitization. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talmar, M.; Walrave, B.; Podoynitsyna, K.S.; Holmström, J.; Romme, A.G.L. Mapping, analyzing and designing innovation ecosystems: The Ecosystem Pie Model. Long Range Plan. 2020, 53, 101850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez-Garcia, P.; Li, Y.; Lopez-Lopez, D.; Juan, A.A. Strategic decision making in smart home ecosystems: A review on the use of artificial intelligence and Internet of things. Internet Things 2023, 22, 100772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffin, A. Modeling and measuring product development cycle time across industries. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 1997, 14, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adikari, S.; McDonald, C.; Campbell, J. Quantitative analysis of desirability in user experience. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1606.03544. [Google Scholar]
- Najmi, A.; Makui, A. A conceptual model for measuring supply chain’s performance. Prod. Plan. Control 2012, 23, 694–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Husted, B.W.; Allen, D.B. Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2006, 37, 838–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuhlman, T.; Farrington, J. What is sustainability? Sustainability 2010, 2, 3436–3448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trunk, A.; Birkel, H.; Hartmann, E. On the current state of combining human and artificial intelligence for strategic organizational decision making. Bus. Res. 2020, 13, 875–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adesina, A.A.; Iyelolu, T.V.; Paul, P.O. Leveraging predictive analytics for strategic decision-making: Enhancing business performance through data-driven insights. World J. Adv. Res. Rev. 2024, 22, 1927–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehrez, A.; Sinuany-Stern, Z. An interactive approach for project selection. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1983, 34, 621–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, R.V. Integrated Project Evaluation and Selection. In Decision Making in the Manufacturing Environment: Using Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods; Springer: London, UK, 2007; pp. 295–304. [Google Scholar]
- Fiala, P. Using an analytic network process model in combinatorial auctions. Int. J. Anal. Hierarchy Process. 2009, 1, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danesh, D.; Ryan, M.J. An innovative strategic project and portfolio management decision-making tool. In Proceedings of the Systems Engineering Test and Evaluation Conference 2018: Unlocking the Future Through Systems Engineering: SETE 2018, Sydney, Australia, 30 April–2 May 2018; Engineers Australia Melbourne: Melbourne, Australia, 2018; pp. 96–105. [Google Scholar]
- Coffin, M.A.; Taylor, B.W., III. Multiple criteria R&D project selection and scheduling using fuzzy logic. Comput. Oper. Res. 1996, 23, 207–220. [Google Scholar]
- Holtzman, S.; Regan, P.J. Activity graphs: A language for flexible consultation systems. Ann. Oper. Res. 1996, 65, 127–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chica, M.; Juan, A.A.; Bayliss, C.; Cordón, O.; Kelton, W.D. Why Simheuristics?: Benefits, limitations, and best practices when combining metaheuristics with simulation. SORT Stat. Oper. Res. Trans. 2020, 44, 0311–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glover, F.W.; Kochenberger, G.A. Handbook of Metaheuristics; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; Volume 57. [Google Scholar]
- Doering, J.; Kizys, R.; Juan, A.A.; Fito, A.; Polat, O. Metaheuristics for rich portfolio optimisation and risk management: Current state and future trends. Oper. Res. Perspect. 2019, 6, 100121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deb, K.; Pratap, A.; Agarwal, S.; Meyarivan, T. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2002, 6, 182–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katoch, S.; Chauhan, S.S.; Kumar, V. A review on genetic algorithm: Past, present, and future. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2021, 80, 8091–8126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, T.J.; Meade, N.; Beasley, J.E.; Sharaiha, Y.M. Heuristics for cardinality constrained portfolio optimisation. Comput. Oper. Res. 2000, 27, 1271–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tasgetiren, M.F.; Suganthan, P.N. A multi-populated differential evolution algorithm for solving constrained optimization problem. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 16–21 July 2006; IEEE: Piscataway Township, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 33–40. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, Y.; Vasko, F.J. A Comprehensive empirical demonstration of the impact of choice constraints on solving generalizations of the 0–1 knapsack problem using the integer programming option of CPLEX®. Eng. Optim. 2020, 52, 1632–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Reference | Focus on Financial Metrics (Risk-Return) | Includes Strategic Ecosystem Factors | Dynamic Decision Models | Incorporates AI Usability | Empirical Validation | Integration of ESG Factors | Broader Strategic Alignment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yang and Yan [1] | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes |
Autio [2] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
Buehring and Bishop [3] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
He et al. [4] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
Loke et al. [5] | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
Sumar and Karlsson [9] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
Markowitz [10] | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No |
Adner [20], Adner and Kapoor [23] | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
Jacobides et al. [26] | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes |
Wei et al. [27] | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
Milhomem and Dantas [14] | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No |
Trunk et al. [35] | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
Adesina et al. [36] | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
Danesh and Ryan [40] | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes |
Talmar et al. [28] | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
This paper | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rodriguez-Garcia, P.; Carracedo, P.; Lopez-Lopez, D.; Juan, A.A.; Martin, J.A. Computer-Supported Strategic Decision Making for Ecosystems Creation. Computers 2024, 13, 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers13120322
Rodriguez-Garcia P, Carracedo P, Lopez-Lopez D, Juan AA, Martin JA. Computer-Supported Strategic Decision Making for Ecosystems Creation. Computers. 2024; 13(12):322. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers13120322
Chicago/Turabian StyleRodriguez-Garcia, Patricia, Patricia Carracedo, David Lopez-Lopez, Angel A. Juan, and Jon A. Martin. 2024. "Computer-Supported Strategic Decision Making for Ecosystems Creation" Computers 13, no. 12: 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers13120322
APA StyleRodriguez-Garcia, P., Carracedo, P., Lopez-Lopez, D., Juan, A. A., & Martin, J. A. (2024). Computer-Supported Strategic Decision Making for Ecosystems Creation. Computers, 13(12), 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers13120322