A product-technology portfolio alignment approach for food industry: a multi-criteria decision making with z-numbers

Abstract

PurposeTo design a novel hybrid approach to illustrate a reciprocal alignment to integrate future products and technologies. This mixed qualitative-quantitative method aims to optimize the final product portfolio and production technologies alignment in the food industry.Design/methodology/approachA list of products and technologies is extracted and evaluated by experts employing Market Attractiveness and Ease of Implementations Matrix (MA-EI) for products and attractiveness and technological Capability Matrix (A-C) for technologies. Weights of high-scored alternatives are attained applying the Z-number extension of Best Worst Method (ZBWM). After the product-technology matrix is formed and the alignment scores of each pair are determined by experts. Subsequently, final scores are computed, and a framework is proposed by electing high-ranked products and technology of each cluster to form the aligned product and technology portfolios of a food and hygiene industry company.FindingsBy employing an uncertain multicriteria decision-making approach besides product and technology matrices in a food industry corporation, among 40 technology and product, 13 products by 6 technologies are proposed. Thus, only six technology are necessary to manufacture the highly important and effective products.Originality/valueThe combination of product and technology analysis matrixes with an uncertain decision-making approach is considered as a novel approach in this research. Moreover, the distinctness between the present study and other researches is the concurrent unified aspect of product portfolio and technology optimization and its implementation in the planning discussion, especially in the food industry.

Context-specific micro-foundations and successful SME internationalisation in emerging markets: A mixed-method analysis of managerial resources and dynamic capabilities

“…Therefore, SMEs highly rely on intangible individual-level resources such as managerial resources, their knowledge, innovativeness, etc. (Mokhtarzadeh, et al, 2020;Jafari-Sadeghi, Dutta, Ferraris, & Del Giudice, 2020;Jafari-Sadeghi, Kimiagari, & Biancone, 2020;Jafari-Sadeghi, Nkongolo-Bakenda, Dana, Anderson, & Biancone, 2020;Sukumar et al, 2020). Managerial resources are precious, difficult to duplicate or be transferred and are seen as an asset for SMEs (Neher & Miles, 2020;Zulu-Chisanga et al, 2020).…”

Entrepreneurial opportunity decisions under uncertainty: Recognizing the complementing role of personality traits and cognitive skills

“…As contended in literature from the behavioral economists and entrepreneurial point of view, people behave in the context of complex social phenomena and an uncertain environment can be rational or irrational. These environmental uncertainties are defined as the lack of ability to properly envision the probable outcomes of a decision (Jafari- Sadeghi et al, 2019;McKelvie et al, 2011;Mokhtarzadeh et al, 2020;Smithson, 2012). Although a stream of research (see Downey & Slocum, 1975;Smithson, 2012) refers environmental uncertainties to the lack of predicting the likelihood of future events, others, e.g.…”

Entrepreneurial opportunity decisions under uncertainty: Recognizing the complementing role of personality traits and cognitive skills

“…As contended in literature from the behavioral economists and entrepreneurial point of view, people behave in the context of complex social phenomena and an uncertain environment can be rational or irrational. These environmental uncertainties are defined as the lack of ability to properly envision the probable outcomes of a decision (Jafari- Sadeghi et al, 2019;McKelvie et al, 2011;Mokhtarzadeh et al, 2020;Smithson, 2012). Although a stream of research (see Downey & Slocum, 1975;Smithson, 2012) refers environmental uncertainties to the lack of predicting the likelihood of future events, others, e.g.…”