Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49 (2009) 12741282

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mathematical and Computer Modelling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mcm

Selection of technology acquisition mode using the analytic network

process
Hakyeon Lee 1 , Sora Lee 1 , Yongtae Park
Department of Industrial Engineering, School of Engineering, Seoul National University, San 56-1, Shillim-Dong, Kwanak-Gu, Seoul 151-742, Republic of Korea

article

info

Article history:
Received 20 March 2008
Received in revised form 3 August 2008
Accepted 7 August 2008
Keywords:
Technology strategy
Technology acquisition mode
Analytic network process

a b s t r a c t
Selecting the appropriate acquisition mode for a required technology, is one of the critical
strategic decisions in formulating a technology strategy. Although a number of factors were
found to be influential in the choice of technology acquisition mode, it still remains a void in
the literature how to make a strategic decision, based on a huge set of those factors with the
help of a systematic approach. This study deals with the selection of technology acquisition
mode as a multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problem. The proposed solution to
the problem in this study, is the analytic network process (ANP) approach. Since the ANP
is a MCDM method that can accommodate interdependency among decision attributes, it
is capable of providing priorities of alternatives with consideration of interrelationships
among strategic factors. The 21 influential factors identified from the empirical studies are
included as sub-criteria in the ANP model, and they are grouped into five criteria: capability,
strategy, technology, market, and environment. The final decision can be made based on the
resulting priorities of the alternative acquisition modes. The proposed approach is expected
to effectively aid decision making on which mode is adopted for acquisition of required
technologies. A case of a software company is presented for the illustration of the proposed
approach.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Effective formulation and implementation of technology strategy has been considered as a major driver for competitive
advantage of a firm. Although much debate is still going on about how to define the scope of technology strategy, from quite
specifically focusing on technology development, to very broad knowledge-based definitions [1], what the literature has in
common is that technology strategy can be viewed as a process composed of a series of steps requiring strategic decisions and
actions, such as acquisition-management-exploitation [1,2]. One of the critical strategic decisions in formulating technology
strategy is how to acquire the required technology. Technology acquisition concerns whether to acquire technologies
through internal development, cooperating with other firms of institutions, or buying the technology [3]. A variety of
technology acquisition strategies (or modes) available and the complexity of modern business environments have led the
decision to be intractably difficult.
Several empirical studies have been conducted to identify key determinants affecting the choice of technology acquisition
mode [47]. However, there is a missing link between influential factors and final decisions. Although a number of factors
were found to be influential in selecting the acquisition mode, it still remains a void in the literature how to make a
strategic decision based on a huge set of influential factors with the help of a systematic and quantitative approach. Various
approaches, based on mathematical programming, statistical analysis, or multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods
have been proposed to aid decisions both prior to and posterior to selection of technology acquisition mode: selection

Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 880 8358; fax: +82 2 878 3511.
E-mail addresses: yuny29@snu.ac.kr (H. Lee), soralang@snu.ac.kr (S. Lee), parkyt@cybernet.snu.ac.kr (Y. Park).

1 Tel.: +82 2 878 3511; fax: +82 2 878 3511.

0895-7177/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2008.08.010

H. Lee et al. / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49 (2009) 12741282

1275

of technologies to be acquired among identified alternatives, such as technology selection [8], R&D project selection [9],
and decisions under the selected acquisition mode such as technology supplier selection [10], go/no-go decision of R&D
projects [11]. However, very few systematic approaches have been proposed to selection of technology acquisition strategy,
while there is a growing need of employing sophisticated mathematical modelling for such strategy selection problems.
This study deals with the selection of technology acquisition mode as a MCDM problem. In MCDM, decision
makers evaluate several alternatives using multiple conflicting criteria. The decision environment of selecting technology
acquisition strategy constitutes a typical form of the MCDM: selecting the appropriate option among several technology
acquisition modes as alternatives by considering various influential factors as criteria. Among a variety of MCDM methods,
the analytic network process (ANP) is employed in the proposed approach. The ANP is a generalisation of the analytic
hierarchy process (AHP), which is one of the most widely used MCDM methods [12]. Since the ANP allows for more
complex interrelationships among elements, by replacing a hierarchy in the AHP with a network, it is capable of providing
priorities of alternatives that capture interrelationships among strategic factors [13]. In particular, the ANP has been proved
to be useful for strategy selection problems, since strategic elements that need to be considered in decision making have
interdependency to each other at most cases. The example of using the ANP for strategy selection includes business
strategy [14], e-business strategy [15], knowledge management strategy [16], and national military strategy [17]. This study
also employs the ANP for selection of technology acquisition strategy.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the underlying methodology of the proposed
approach, the ANP. The proposed approach is explained in Section 3 and illustrated with a case study in Section 4. The paper
ends with conclusions in Section 5.
2. Analytic network process
The ANP is a generalisation of the AHP [12]. The AHP, also developed by Saaty [18], is one of the most widely used MCDM
methods. The AHP decomposes a problem into several levels making, up a hierarchy in which each decision element is
considered to be independent. The ANP extends the AHP to problems with dependence and feedback. The ANP allows for
more complex interrelationships among decision elements by replacing the hierarchy in the AHP with a network [19].
Due to such advantage, recent years have seen a huge increase in the use of the ANP for various MCDM problems [20]. In
addition, the ANP has been applied to decision making with the existing frameworks such as quality function deployment
(QFD) [21] and balanced scorecard (BSC) [22]. Various attempts have also been made to integrate the ANP with another
theory or technique such as fuzzy set theory [23,24] and mathematical programming [25,26].
The process of the ANP is comprised of the following four major steps [12,19,27]:
(i) Step 1 (model construction): A problem is decomposed into a network in which nodes corresponds to components.
The elements in a component can interact with some or all of the elements of another component. Also, relationships among
elements in the same component can exist. These relationships are represented by arcs with directions.
(ii) Step 2 (pairwise comparisons and local priority vectors): The elements are compared pairwisely with respect to their
impacts on other elements. The way of conducting pairwise comparisons and obtaining priority vectors is the same as in the
AHP. The relative importance values are determined on a scale of 19, where a score of 1 indicates equal importance between
the two elements and 9 represents the extreme importance of one element compared with the other one. A reciprocal value
is assigned to the inverse comparison; that is, aji = 1/aij where aij denotes the importance of the ith element compared with
the jth element. Also, aii = 1 is preserved in the pairwise comparison matrix. Then, the eigenvector method is employed
to obtain the local priority vectors for each pairwise comparison matrix. To test consistency of a pairwise comparison, a
consistency ratio (CR) can be introduced with consistency index (CI) and random index (RI). If the CR is less than 0.1, the
pairwise comparison is considered acceptable. For detailed information on how to calculate CR, see the text by Saaty [18].
(iii) Step 3 (supermatrix formation and transformation): The local priority vectors are entered into the appropriate
columns of a supermatrix, which is a partitioned matrix where each segment represents a relationship between two
components. The supermatrix of a system of N components is denoted as the following:

(1)

1276

H. Lee et al. / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49 (2009) 12741282

Table 1
Factors affecting the selection of technology acquisition modes
Criteria

Sub-criteria

Reference

Capability

Technological position
R&D resources
R&D manpower
R&D experience
Firm size
Complementary asset
Fit with business strategy
Fit with technology strategy
Acquisition urgency
Importance to a firm
Technology life cycle
Development cost
Technological relatedness
Easiness to imitate
Commercial uncertainty
Market size
Competitive intensity
Appropriability regime
Availability of external source
Quality of external technology
Dynamism

[2,5,2831]
[2,31]
[5]
[5,29,32,33]
[7,31,34]
[3,31]
[35]
[3]
[2]
[2,36]
[2,4,5,30,3743]
[3,5,30,42,44,45]
[4]
[46]
[5,44,45,4752]
[5,53]
[4,5,31,33,35,54,55]
[4,5,30,37,56,57]
[3,6]
[6]
[31,35,46]

Strategy

Technology

Market

Environment

Ck is the kth component (k = 1, 2, . . . , N ), which has nk elements denoted as ek1 , ek2 , . . . , eknk . A matrix segment, Wij ,
represents a relationship between the ith component and the jth component. Each column of Wij is the local priority vector
obtained from the corresponding pairwise comparison, representing the importance of the elements in the ith component
to an element in the jth component. When there is no relationship between components, the corresponding matrix segment
is a zero matrix. Then, the supermatrix is transformed into the weighted supermatrix, each of whose columns sums to one.
This column stochastic feature of the weighted supermatrix allows convergence to occur in the limit supermatrix. Finally,
the weighted supermatrix is transformed into the limit supermatrix by raising it to powers. The reason for multiplying the
weighted supermatrix, is to capture the transmission of influence along all possible paths of the supermatrix. Raising the
weighted supermatrix allows convergence of the matrix, and the resulting matrix is called the limit supermatrix, which
yields limit priorities capturing all of the direct and indirect influences of each element on every other element.
(iv) Step 4 (final priorities): When the supermatrix covers the whole network, the finial priorities of elements are found
in the corresponding columns in the limit supermatrix. If a supermatrix only includes interrelated components, additional
calculations should be made for obtaining final priorities.
3. Proposed approach
3.1. Model development
This section develops the ANP model for selection of technology acquisition mode. The goal of the ANP model is
to select the best option for acquiring the required technology among the alternative modes. A number of technology
acquisition modes are available, such as acquisition, merger, licensing, joint venture, joint R&D, R&D contract, alliance,
consortium, outsourcing, in-house R&D [3]. Since too many alternatives make the ANP procedure extremely complex and
time-consuming, three broad categories of the technology acquisition modes have been defined as the alternatives of the
ANP model: Make, Cooperate, and Buy. Make means in-house R&D, and Cooperate includes various forms of cooperation with
other firms with or without equity involvement such as joint venture, joint R&D and alliance. Buy constitutes a form of R&D
contract, acquisition, licensing, and outsourcing.
The literature review was conducted to identify factors that need to be considered when evaluating the appropriateness
of the acquisition modes. Total 21 factors were identified and summarised in Table 1 with their references. The factors can
also be classified into five categories: capability, strategy, technology, market, and environment. The five categories and 21
factors are employed in the model as criteria and sub-criteria, respectively.
Fig. 1 shows the developed ANP model composed of the goal, five criteria, 21 sub-criteria, and three alternatives. Among
the various form of the network model in the ANP, the proposed model takes the form of a control hierarchy, which is
simply hierarchy of criteria and sub-criteria where priorities are derived with respect to the overall goal of the system
being analysed [12]. It assumes that interdependency occurs at the sub-criteria level; the sub-criteria belonging to the same
criteria have interdependency on each other. For example, technological position of a firm is likely to be influenced by
its R&D manpower or R&D experience, and vice versa. Thus, this interrelationships among factors need to be mirrored in
evaluation of technology acquisition modes. That is why the ANP is employed in the proposed approach instead of the AHP.
This form of the ANP model is similar to the model by Meade and Sarkis [19], Agarwal and Shankar [58], and Jharkharia and
Shankar [59].

H. Lee et al. / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49 (2009) 12741282

1277

Fig. 1. ANP model for selection of technology acquisition mode.

3.2. Procedure
The evaluation of the alternatives modes for technology acquisition starts with the proposed ANP model. Pairwise
comparisons are made among the five criteria with respect to the importance to the goal, among sub-criteria with respect
the importance to their criteria. In addition, pairwise comparisons need to be conducted for interdependency among subcriteria within the same criteria.
Then, preference to alternatives in terms of each sub-criterion is obtained through pairwise comparisons. The question
for comparison is: how much more is a technology acquisition mode appropriate than another mode when considering the
given sub-criterion? To help answer the question, Table 2 provides general guidelines developed based on the empirical
findings derived from the previous studies. The number of + indicates the relative preference to each mode when the
degree of the value for each factor is high. If the technological position of a firm is high, for example, the order of preference
is Make (++), Cooperate (+), and Buy. When a firm has considerable R&D experience, the preferred mode is Make (+). One
thing that should be noted here is the + scale is not interval but ordinal; that is, ++ is not twice as good as +. In the
pairwise comparison, thus, any scale from 2 to 9 can be used for comparing a mode denoted as ++ with another mode
denoted as +. For some factors about which empirical findings are controversial, multiple guidelines are presented with
the previous studies supporting them.
After all types of pairwise comparisons are completed, the supermatrix is constructed with priority vectors obtained
from pairwise comparisons for interdependency. In the proposed approach, the supermatrix is equivalent to the weighted
supermatrix since the supermatrix is already column stochastic. Therefore, the supermatrix is directly transformed into the
limit supermatrix.
The final priorities are calculated by the desirability index approach proposed by Meade and Sarkis [19]. The desirability
index (Di ) for the alternative i is defined as the following:
Di =

Kj
J X
X

Pj ADkj AIkj Sikj .

(2)

j=1 k=1

Kj is the index set of sub-criteria for criterion j, and J is the index set for criterion j. Pj is the relative importance of criterion
j and ADkj is the relative importance of sub-criterion k of criterion j for the dependency (D) relationships. These are derived
from the pairwise comparisons among criteria and among sub-criteria, respectively. AIkj is the stabilised importance weight
of the sub-criterion k of criterion j for interdependency (I) relationships, which is taken from the limit supermatrix. Sikj
is the rating of alternative i on sub-criterion k of criterion j. The appropriateness weighted index (AWI) can be obtained by
normalizing the derived desirability index. The final decision is then made based on the AWIs of the three alternative modes.

1278

H. Lee et al. / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49 (2009) 12741282

Table 2
General guidelines for comparing acquisition modes
Criteria

Sub-criteria

Capability

Preferred mode

Technological position
R&D resources
R&D manpower
R&D experience
Firm size
Complementary asset
Fit with business strategy
Fit with technology strategy
Acquisition urgency
Importance to a firm
Stage in technology life cycle

Strategy

Technology

Reference

Make

Cooperate

++
++
++
+
++
+
++
++

+
+
+

++

+
+
+
+
+
+

++
++
++

+
Development cost
Technological relatedness
Easiness to imitate
Commercial uncertainty

Market

Market size
Competitive intensity
Environment

Appropriability regime

++

Buy

[2,30,42]
[3741]

+
+
+

+
+
+
+
++

Availability of external source

Quality of external technology
Dynamism

++
+
++
+
+
+

[44,45,50,55]
[4749]

[31]
[29,52,53]
[35,54]
[28,55]

+
++
++

+
+

Table 3
Pairwise comparison matrix among criteria with respect to the goal

Capability
Strategy
Technology
Market
Environment

Capability

Strategy

Technology

Market

Environment

Priority

5
1

2
1/3
1

3
1
5
1

5
1/3
1
1/2
1

0.445
0.071
0.237
0.082
0.165
CR: 0.06

4. Illustrative example
In this section, the following example is presented for illustration of the proposed approach. The proposed approach
was applied to technology acquisition mode selection in a software company located in Seoul, Korea. Over the last decade,
the company has developed and provided a range of advanced IT solutions to clients throughout the world. Although the
main product has been middle-ware solutions, the company has a plan to enter the small and medium enterprise (SME)
enterprise resource planning (ERP) market by developing an own ERP package. The technologies or products required for
developing the designed ERP package are as follows: (1) AJAX, (2) OR mapping, (3) Aspect oriented programming (AOP),
(4) Role based access control (RBAC), and (5) Group ware. The company already possesses the high level of AJAX and group
ware technologies, and OR mapping and AOP can be obtained as a freeware. The problem to be faced is how to acquire the
RBAC technology.
4.1. Pairwise comparisons and priority vectors
Firstly, the relative importance of each criterion with respect to the goal, selection of the most appropriate mode of
technology acquisition was derived. The pairwise comparison matrix and the resulting priority vectors are shown in Table 3.
The priority vectors of the criteria are imported as Pj in Table 9.
Secondly, pairwise comparisons among sub-criteria are carried out with respect to their criterion. For example, the
pairwise comparison matrix with respect to Capability is shown in Table 4. The additional comparisons were also made
for the other four criteria. The priority vectors obtained here are carried as ADkj in Table 9.
Then, pairwise comparisons were conducted to measure interdependency among the sub-criteria. Because the model
includes 21 sub-criteria, 21 pairwise comparisons were made with respect to the impact on the given sub-criterion among
sub-criteria under the same criteria. The pairwise comparison matrix for sub-criteria with respect to TP under Capability is
shown as an example in Table 5. The resulting priority vectors are entered into the supermatrix in Table 7.

H. Lee et al. / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49 (2009) 12741282

1279

Table 4
Pairwise comparison matrix among sub-criteria with respect to Capability

TP
RR
RM
RE
FS
CS

TP

RR

RM

RE

FS

CS

Priority

3
1

1
1/2
1

1
1/3
1
1

5
3
3
4
1

6
4
5
6
2
1

0.277
0.125
0.230
0.267
0.062
0.039
CR: 0.02

Table 5
Pairwise comparison matrix among sub-criteria with respect to TP under Capability

RR
RM
RE
FS
CS

RR

RM

RE

FS

CS

Priority

1/3
1

1/3
1
1

3
3
4
1

2
4
5
1
1

0.152
0.330
0.362
0.080
0.076
CR: 0.02

Table 6
Pairwise comparison matrix among alternatives with respect to TP

Make
Cooperate
Buy

Make

Cooperate

Buy

Priority

3
1

4
2
1

0.625
0.238
0.136
CR: 0.02

Finally, the alternatives were pairwisely compared with respect to preference, in terms of each sub-criterion. The
guidelines in Table 2 were referred to evaluate the relative appropriateness of the three technology acquisition modes.
As an example, the pairwise comparison matrix among alternatives with respect to TP is shown in Table 6.
4.2. Supermatrix formation and transformation
The supermatrix was constructed with priority vectors obtained from pairwise comparisons for interdependencies
among the sub-criteria, as shown in Table 7. As the supermatrix is already stochastic; it is directly transformed into the
limit supermatrix. In this case, convergence was reached at W77 . The limit supermatrix is shown in Table 8. The converged
priorities for sub-criteria are carried as AIkj in Table 9.
4.3. Final priorities
The final priorities, the AWIs, were produced by the desirability index approach, as shown in Table 9. The values of the
third column are the priorities of the criteria which come from Table 4. The values of the fourth column, which are imported
from Table 5 and the other pairwise comparisons among sub-criteria, are the relative importance of the sub-criteria in
influencing their criteria. The values of the fifth column represent the priorities of the sub-criteria obtained from the limit
supermatrix in Table 8. The values of the next eight columns correspond to the priorities of the three acquisition modes in
terms of each sub-criterion, including the priorities with respect to TP in Table 6. The desirability indices obtained by Eq.
(1) are presented in the last two rows of Table 9. The final priorities of the three alternative modes, the appropriateness
weighted indices are shown in the last row. The result indicates the AWI of Make (0.465) is about twice higher than those of
Cooperate (0.242) and Buy (0.293). Thus, it is recommended that the RBAC technology be acquired through in-house R&D.
5. Conclusions
This study proposed the ANP approach for the selection of a technology acquisition mode. The proposed approach
evaluates the appropriateness of alternative modes for technology acquisition, in terms of capability, strategy, technology,
market, and environment. The case of a software company was presented for the illustration of the proposed approach. It was
shown that the ANP was successfully employed for producing the priorities of the alternative modes, with a consideration
of interdependency among decision elements.
This paper contributes to the field, by proposing a method for linking influential factors with a final decision. Most of the
previous studies were limited to identifying factors affecting the choice of a technology acquisition mode; it has not dealt

1280

H. Lee et al. / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49 (2009) 12741282

Table 7
Supermatrix
Capability

Capability

TP
RR
RM
RE
FS
CS
Strategy
BS
TS
AU
IF
Technology TL
DC
TR
IM
Market
CS
MS
CI
Environment AR
AE
QE
DY

Strategy

TP

RR

RM

RE

FS

CS

0.000
0.152
0.330
0.362
0.080
0.076

0.421
0.000
0.190
0.190
0.096
0.103

0.169
0.169
0.000
0.449
0.123
0.090

0.107
0.207
0.504
0.000
0.134
0.048

0.287
0.142
0.142
0.142
0.000
0.287

0.287
0.142
0.142
0.142
0.287
0.000

Technology

BS

TS

AU

IF

0.000
0.481
0.114
0.405

0.747
0.000
0.119
0.134

0.200
0.200
0.000
0.600

0.637
0.258
0.105
0.000

Market

TL

DC

TR

IM

0.000
0.200
0.600
0.200

0.405
0.000
0.481
0.114

0.413
0.260
0.000
0.327

0.714
0.143
0.143
0.000

CS

MS

Environment

CI

AR

AE

QE

DY

0.000
0.250
0.250
0.500

0.200
0.000
0.600
0.200

0.163
0.540
0.000
0.297

0.600
0.200
0.200
0.000

0.000 0.333 0.667

0.500 0.000 0.333
0.500 0.667 0.000

Table 8
Limit supermatrix
Capability

Capability

TP
RR
RM
RE
FS
CS
Strategy
BS
TS
AU
IF
Technology TL
DC
TR
IM
Market
CS
MS
CI
Environment AR
AE
QE
DY

Strategy

TP

RR

RM

RE

FS

CS

0.185
0.144
0.233
0.229
0.115
0.094

0.185
0.144
0.233
0.229
0.115
0.094

0.185
0.144
0.233
0.229
0.115
0.094

0.185
0.144
0.233
0.229
0.115
0.094

0.185
0.144
0.233
0.229
0.115
0.094

0.185
0.144
0.233
0.229
0.115
0.094

Technology

BS

TS

AU

IF

0.380
0.268
0.102
0.251

0.380
0.268
0.102
0.251

0.380
0.268
0.102
0.251

0.380
0.268
0.102
0.251

Market

TL

DC

TR

IM

0.331
0.173
0.309
0.187

0.331
0.173
0.309
0.187

0.331
0.173
0.309
0.187

0.331
0.173
0.309
0.187

CS

MS

Environment

CI

AR

AE

QE

DY

0.241
0.250
0.260
0.248

0.241
0.250
0.260
0.248

0.241
0.250
0.260
0.248

0.241
0.250
0.260
0.248

0.341 0.341 0.341

0.293 0.293 0.293
0.366 0.366 0.366

with how to make a strategic decision based on a huge set of influential factors. The proposed approach incorporates the
influential factors identified in the previous studies in the ANP model and helps come to a final decision with those factors,
using the ANP procedure.
However, the criteria or the alternatives included in the ANP model are by no means exhaustive or fixed. The ANP model
can be customised depending on the context. The proposed ANP model in Fig. 1 only includes the three alternative modes
for technology acquisition at the high level of aggregation, but they can be divided into more specific forms. If the acquisition
mode at the high level is already selected (e.g. Make, Cooperate, or Buy), only the specific modes for the selected mode need
to be included (e.g. joint venture, joint R&D, alliance for Cooperate). The criteria can also be added to or removed from the
model upon judgment of a firm.

H. Lee et al. / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49 (2009) 12741282

1281

Table 9
Calculation of desirability indices and final priorities
Criteria
Capability

Sub-criteria

Pi

TP
0.445
RR
0.445
RM
0.445
RE
0.445
FS
0.445
CS
0.445
Strategy
BS
0.071
TS
0.071
AU
0.071
IF
0.071
Technology
TL
0.237
DC
0.237
TR
0.237
IM
0.237
Market
CS
0.082
MS
0.082
CI
0.082
Environment
AR
0.165
AE
0.165
QE
0.165
DY
0.165
Desirability indices (Di )
Appropriateness weighted indices (AWI i )

ADkj

AIkj

S1kj

S2kj

S3kj

Make

Cooperate

Buy

0.277
0.125
0.230
0.267
0.062
0.039
0.486
0.207
0.080
0.227
0.241
0.570
0.124
0.065
0.455
0.090
0.455
0.169
0.368
0.368
0.096

0.185
0.144
0.233
0.229
0.115
0.094
0.380
0.268
0.102
0.251
0.286
0.145
0.188
0.143
0.341
0.293
0.366
0.241
0.250
0.260
0.248

0.625
0.540
0.547
0.674
0.200
0.600
0.637
0.637
0.192
0.571
0.188
0.429
0.637
0.625
0.444
0.648
0.500
0.105
0.143
0.221
0.200

0.238
0.297
0.263
0.225
0.600
0.200
0.258
0.258
0.634
0.286
0.081
0.142
0.258
0.238
0.444
0.230
0.250
0.258
0.143
0.319
0.200

0.137
0.163
0.190
0.101
0.200
0.200
0.105
0.105
0.174
0.143
0.731
0.429
0.105
0.137
0.112
0.122
0.250
0.637
0.714
0.460
0.600

0.014
0.004
0.013
0.018
0.001
0.001
0.008
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.003
0.008
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.001
0.007
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.101
0.203
0.465

0.005
0.002
0.006
0.006
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.053
0.106
0.242

0.003
0.001
0.005
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.012
0.008
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.003
0.004
0.011
0.007
0.064
0.128
0.293

The refinement of the proposed approach for more sophisticated modelling will be a fruitful area for future research.
The proposed ANP model only mirrors the interdependency among sub-criteria under the same criteria, but there can be
interrelationships between sub-criteria in different criteria. Incorporating those relationships in the ANP model is expected
to produce more accurate and realistic results. Fuzzy numbers can also be introduced in the pairwise comparison matrices,
to more effectively measure the appropriateness in terms of sub-criteria having great uncertainty.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]

S. Davenport, C. Campbell-Hunt, J. Solomon, The dynamics of technology strategy: An exploratory study, R&D Manage. 33 (5) (2003) 481499.
D. Ford, Develop your technology strategy, Long. Range. Plann. 21 (5) (1988) 8595.
V. Chiesa, R&D Strategy and Organization: Managing Technical Change in Dynamic Contexts, Imperial College Press, London, 2001.
S. Kurokawa, Make-or-buy decisions in R&D: Small technology based firms in the United States and Japan, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 44 (2) (1997)
124134.
D.H. Cho, P.I. Yu, Influential factors in the choice of technology acquisition mode: An empirical analysis of small and medium size firms in Korean
telecommunication industry, Technovation 20 (12) (2000) 691704.
M. Hemmert, The influence of institutional factors on the technology acquisition performance of high-tech firms: Survey results from Germany and
Japan, Res. Policy 33 (67) (2004) 10191039.
S.W. Hung, R.H. Tang, Factors affecting the choice of technology acquisition mode: An empirical analysis of the electronic firms of Japan, Korea and
Taiwan, Technovation (2007) doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.10.005.
N. Gerdsri, D.F. Kocaoglu, Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to build a strategic framework for technology roadmapping, Math. Comput.
Modelling 46 (7-8) (2007) 10711080.
L.M. Meade, A. Presley, R&D project selection using the analytic network process, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 49 (1) (2002) 5966.
R.F. Saen, A decision model for selecting technology suppliers in the presence of nondiscretionary factors, Appl. Math. Comput. 181 (2) (2006)
16091615.
V. Kumar, A.N.S. Persaud, U. Kumar, To terminate or not an ongoing R&D project: A managerial dilemma, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 43 (3) (1996)
273284.
T.L. Saaty, Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1996.
H.J. Shyur, H.S. Shih, A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection, Math. Comput. Modelling 44 (78) (2006) 749761.
I. Yuksel, M. Dagdeviren, Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis: A case study for a textile firm, Inform. Sci. 177 (16) (2007)
33643382.
M.S. Raisinghani, L. Meade, L.L. Schkade, Strategic e-business decision analysis using the analytic network process, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 54 (4)
(2007) 673686.
W.W. Wu, Y.T. Lee, Selecting knowledge management strategies by using the analytic network process, Expert Syst. Appl. 32 (3) (2007) 841847.
B. Simunich, The ANP had shown a better way to deal with Iraq, Math. Comput. Modelling 46 (7-8) (2007) 11301143.
T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
L.M. Meade, J. Sarkis, Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile manufacturing processes: An analytic network approach, Int. J. Prod. Res.
37 (2) (1999) 241261.
H. Lee, H. Seol, N. Sung, Y.S. Hong, Y. Park, An analytic network process approach to measuring design change impacts in modular products. J. Eng.
Des., doi:10.1080/09544820802232517.
C. Kahraman, T. Ertay, G. Bykzkan, A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic network approach, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 171
(2) (2006) 390411.
L.C. Leung, K.C. Lam, D. Cao, Implementing the balanced scorecard using the analytic hierarchy process & the analytic network process, J. Oper. Res.
Soc. 57 (6) (2006) 682691.
M. Dadeviren, Yksel, M. Kurt, A fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) model to identify faulty behaviors risk (FBR) in work systems, Safety Sci. 46
(5) (2008) 771783.

1282

H. Lee et al. / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49 (2009) 12741282

[24] M.A.B. Promentilla, T. Furuichi, K. Ishii, N. Tanikawa, A fuzzy analytic network process for multi-criteria evaluation of contaminated site remedial
countermeasures, J. Environ. Manage. 88 (3) (2008) 479495.
[25] J.W. Lee, S.H. Kim, Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection, Comput. Oper.
Res. 27 (4) (2000) 367382.
[26] O. Ustun, E.A. Demirtas, An integrated multi-objective decision-making process for multi-period lot-sizing with supplier selection, Omega 36 (4)
(2008) 509521.
[27] H. Lee, C. Kim, H. Cho, Y. Park, An ANP-based technology network for identification of core technologies: A case of telecommunication technologies,
Expert Syst. Appl. (2007) doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.10.026.
[28] E.B. Roberts, C.A. Berry, Entering new business: Selecting strategies for success, Sloan Manage. Rev. 26 (3) (1985) 317.
[29] R.K. Moenaert, D. Desschoolmeester, A. de Meyer, J. Barbe, Organizational strategy and resource allocation for technological turnaround, R&D Manage.
20 (4) (1990) 291303.
[30] B.B. Tyler, H.K. Steensma, Evaluating technological collaborative opportunities: A cognitive modeling perspective, Strategic Manage. J. 16 (1995) 4370.
[31] J. Lowe, P. Taylor, R&D and technology purchase through license agreements: Complementary strategies and complementary assets, R&D Manage. 28
(4) (1998) 263278.
[32] R.R. Nelson, S.G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
[33] G.P. Pisano, The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis, Admin. Sci. Quart. 35 (1) (1990) 153176.
[34] J. Poon, A. MacPherson, Asian firms technology acquisition strategies in the United States, J. Eng. Technolog. Manage. 42 (2005) 321342.
[35] B.B. Allred, K.S. Swan, Contextual influences on international subsidiaries product technology strategy, J. Int. Manage. 10 (2) (2004) 259286.
[36] T. Baines, An integrated process for forming manufacturing technology acquisition decisions, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Man. 24 (5) (2004) 447467.
[37] D.J. Teece, Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy, Res. Policy 15 (6) (1986)
285305.
[38] B. Kogut, Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives, Strategic Manage. J. 9 (4) (1988) 319332.
[39] E.R. Auster, The relationship of industry evolution to patterns of technological linkages, joint ventures, and direct investment between U.S. and Japan,
Manage. Sci. 38 (6) (1992) 778792.
[40] G.C. Cainarca, M.G. Colombo, S. Mariotti, Agreements between firms and the technological life cycle model: Evidence from information technologies,
Res. Policy 21 (1) (1992) 4562.
[41] A. Madhok, Cost, value and foreign market entry mode: The transaction and the firm, Strategic Manage. J. 18 (1) (1997) 3961.
[42] B. Croisier, The governance of external research: Empirical test of some transaction-cost related factors, R&D Manage. 28 (4) (1998) 289298.
[43] L. Canez, D. Probert, Technology sourcing: The link to make-or-buy, in: Proceedings of Portland International Conference on Management of
Engineering and Technology, 1999 pp. 4752.
[44] G. Hamel, Y.L. Doz, C.K. Prahalad, Collaborate with your competitors and win, Harvard Bus. Rev. 89 (1) (1989) 133139.
[45] M. Dodgson, The strategic management of R&D collaboration, Technol. Anal. Strateg. 3 (1992) 227244.
[46] H.K. Steensma, K.G. Corley, On the performance of technology-sourcing partnerships: The interaction between partner interdependence and
technology attributes, Acad. Manage. J 43 (6) (2000) 10451067.
[47] G. Walker, D. Webber, Supplier competition, uncertainty, and Make-or-Buy decisions, Acad. Manage. J 30 (3) (1987) 589596.
[48] C.C. Baughn, R.N. Osborn, The role of technology in the formation and form of multinational cooperative arrangements, J. High Technol. Manage. Res.
1 (2) (1990) 181192.
[49] J.T. Mahoney, The choice of organizational form: Vertical financial ownership versus other methods of vertical integration, Strategic Manage. J. 13 (8)
(1992) 559584.
[50] P. Llerena, S. Wolf, Inter-firm agreements in telecommunications: Elements of an analytical framework, in: G. Pogoral (Ed.), Global
Telecommunications Strategies and Technical Changes, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1994, pp. 257276.
[51] R. Veugelers, Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing, Res. Policy 26 (3) (1997) 303315.
[52] V. Chiesa, R. Manzini, Organizing for technological collaborations: A managerial perspective, R&D Manage. 28 (3) (1998) 199212.
[53] R.S. Rosenbloom, M.A. Cusumano, Technological pioneering and competitive advantage: The birth of VCR industry, Calif. Manage. Rev. 29 (4) (1987)
5176.
[54] A.C. Perrino, J.W. Tipping, Global management of technology, Res. Technol. Mange. 32 (3) (1989) 1219.
[55] W. Shan, An empirical analysis of organizational strategies by entrepreneurial high technology firms, Strategic Manage. J. 11 (2) (1990) 129139.
[56] M. Spence, Cost reduction, competition and industry performance, Econometrica 52 (1) (1984) 101122.
[57] R. Veugelers, B. Cassiman, Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms, Res. Policy 28 (1) (1999) 6380.
[58] A. Agarwal, R. Shankar, On-line trust building in e-enabled supply chain, Supply Chain Manage. 8 (4) (2003) 324334.
[59] S. Jharkharia, R. Shankar, Selection of logistics service provider: An analytic network process (ANP), Omega 35 (3) (2007) 274289.