Digital Innovation Performance Evaluation of European Union Member and Candidate Countries with IDOCRIW and CRADIS Methods

Kevser Arman; Nilsen Kundakcı; Ali Katrancı

doi:10.31181/sdmap31202650

Authors

Kevser Arman Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4400-5976
Nilsen Kundakcı Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7283-320X
Ali Katrancı Pamukkale University, Social Sciences Institute, Major of Business Administration, Denizli, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7586-1169

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap31202650

Keywords:

MCDM, IDOCRIW, CRADIS, Digital Innovation performance

Abstract

This study evaluates the digital innovation performance of European Union (EU) members and candidate countries by applying a novel integrated multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach. Specifically, the IDOCRIW method is employed to determine objective weights for digital innovation indicators derived from the Global Innovation Index (GII) 2024 report, while the CRADIS method is utilized to assess and rank country performance. The research incorporates indicators directly related to digital innovation, including ICT use, software spending, mobile app creation, GitHub activity, high-tech and ICT exports, mobile application creation, e-participation, and university–industry collaboration. The results highlight significant disparities in digital innovation performance among the analysed countries. Cyprus, Ireland, and the Netherlands emerged as the top performers, whereas Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia ranked lowest. The integrated model provides a robust and transparent framework for comparative innovation analysis, offering valuable insights for policymakers aiming to enhance digital innovation capacity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ecer, F., & Aycin, E. (2023). Novel comprehensive MEREC weighting-based score aggregation model for measuring innovation performance: The case of G7 countries. Informatica, 34(1), 53–83.

Murat, D., & Güzel, S. (2024). Rekabetçilik ve inovasyon performansı değerlendirmesi: OECD ülkeleri üzerine ampirik bir inceleme [Competitiveness and innovation performance assessment: An empirical study on OECD countries]. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 8(3), 909–922.

McDermott, C. M., & O'Connor, G. C. (2002). Managing radical innovation: An overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(6), 424–438.

Oralhan, B., & Büyüktürk, M. A. (2019). Comparison of European Union and Turkey’s innovation performance by using multi criteria decision making methods. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 16, 471–484.

Henrekson, M., & Johansson, D. (2025). Neo-Schumpeterian growth theory: Missing entrepreneurs results in incomplete policy advice. Small Business Economics, 1–19.

Hua, W., Leong, C., & Ge, C. (2024). Digital innovation trajectory, navigating uncertainty for established organizations. ICIS 2024 Proceedings, 21.

Khin, S., & Ho, T. C. (2020). Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance: A mediating role of digital innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 11(2), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2018-0083

Xu, K., Mei, R., Sun, W., Zhang, H., & Liang, L. (2023). Estimation of sustainable innovation performance in European Union countries: Based on the perspective of energy and environmental constraints. Energy Reports, 9, 1919–1925.

Öztaş, T., & Öztaş, G. Z. (2024). Innovation performance analysis of G20 countries: A novel integrated LOPCOW-MAIRCA MCDM approach including the COVID-19 period. Verimlilik Dergisi, 1–20.

Satı, Z. E. (2024). Comparison of the criteria affecting the digital innovation performance of the European Union (EU) member and candidate countries with the entropy weight-TOPSIS method and investigation of its importance for SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, 123094.

Global Innovation Index. (2024). Global Innovation Index 2024. https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/global-innovation-index-2024/en/

Puška, A., Stević, Ž., & Pamučar, D. (2022a). Evaluation and selection of healthcare waste incinerators using extended sustainability criteria and multi-criteria analysis methods. Environmental Development and Sustainability, 24, 11195–11225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01902-2

Puška, A., & Stojanović, I. (2022). Fuzzy multi-criteria analyses on green supplier selection in an agri-food company. Journal of Intelligent Management Decision, 1(1), 2–16.

Puška, A., Nedeljković, M., Šarkoćević, Ž., Golubović, Z., Ristić, V., & Stojanović, I. (2022b). Evaluation of agricultural machinery using multi-criteria analysis methods. Sustainability, 14(14), 8675.

Starčević, V., Petrović, V., Mirović, I., Tanasić, L. Ž., Stević, Ž., & Đurović Todorović, J. (2022). A novel integrated PCA-DEA-IMF SWARA-CRADIS model for evaluating the impact of FDI on the sustainability of the economic system. Sustainability, 14(20), 13587.

Stojanović, I., Puška, A., & Selaković, M. (2022). A multi-criteria approach to the comparative analysis of the global innovation index on the example of the Western Balkan countries. Economics, 10(2), 9–26.

Altıntaş, F. F. (2023). Analysis of the prosperity performances of G7 countries: An application of the LOPCOW-based CRADIS method. Alphanumeric Journal, 11(2), 157–182.

Baydaş, M., Eren, T., Stević, Ž., Starčević, V., & Parlakkaya, R. (2023). Proposal for an objective binary benchmarking framework that validates each other for comparing MCDM methods through data analytics. PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1350.

Das, P. P., & Chakraborty, S. (2023). A comparative analysis on optimization of end milling processes using multi-criteria decision making methods. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 17(4), 1611–1632.

Das, A., Chaudhuri, T., Roy, S. S., Biswas, S., & Guha, B. (2023). Selection of appropriate portfolio optimization strategy. Theoretical and Applied Computational Intelligence, 1(1), 58–81.

Gamal, A., Abd El-Gawad, A. F., & Abouhawwash, M. (2023). Towards a responsive resilient supply chain based on ındustry 5.0: A case study in healthcare systems. Neutrosophic Systems with Applications, 2, 8–24.

Puška, A., Božanić, D., Mastilo, Z., & Pamučar, D. (2023a). Extension of MEREC-CRADIS methods with double normalization-case study selection of electric cars. Soft Computing, 27, 7097–7113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08054-7

Puška, A., Lukić, M., Božanić, D., Nedeljković, M., & Hezam, I. M. (2023b). Selection of an insurance company in agriculture through hybrid multi-criteria decision-making. Entropy, 25(6), 959.

Puška, A., Štilić, A., & Stojanović, I. (2023c). Approach for multi-criteria ranking of Balkan countries based on the index of economic freedom. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.31181/jdaic10017022023p

Ulutaş, A., Balo, F., Mirković, K., Stević, Ž., & Mostafa, M. M. H. (2023). MCDM model for critical selection of building and insulation materials for optimising energy usage and environmental effect in production focus. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 29(7), 587–603. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2023.19569

Van Dua, T. (2023). Combination of symmetry point of criterion, compromise ranking of alternatives from distance to ideal solution and collaborative unbiased rank list integration methods for woodworking machinery selection for small business in Vietnam. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, 2, 83–96.

Cheng, R., Fan, J., Wu, M., & Seiti, H. (2024). A large-scale multi-attribute group decision-making method with R-numbers and its application to hydrogen fuel cell logistics path selection. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 1–48.

Demir, A. T., & Moslem, S. (2024). Evaluating the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical waste disposal using preference selection index with CRADIS in a fuzzy environment. Heliyon, 10(5), e26997.

Dündar, S. (2024). Project performance analysis of Turkish universities by LOPCOW-CRADIS methods. Journal of Turkish Operations Management, 8(2), 409–425.

Hua, W., Leong, C., & Ge, C. (2024). Digital innovation trajectory, navigating uncertainty for established organizations. ICIS 2024 Proceedings. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2024/diginnoventren/diginnoventren/21

Krishankumar, R., Dhruva, S., Ravichandran, K. S., & Kar, S. (2024). Selection of a viable blockchain service provider for data management within the internet of medical things: An MCDM approach to Indian healthcare. Information Sciences, 657, 119890.

Özekenci, E. K. (2024). Performance measurement of the logistics companies on the Fortune 500 by SWARA and MEREC-based CRADIS methods. Studies in Business and Economics, 19(3), 191–212.

Özekenci, S. Y. (2024). Financial performance measurement of companies in the BIST sustainability 25 index with LBWA and MEREC-based CRADIS methods. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 11(3), 1184–1211.

Puška, A., Štilić, A., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., & Nedeljković, M. (2024). Introducing a novel multi-criteria ranking of alternatives with weights of criterion (RAWEC) model. MethodsX, 102628.

Stojanović, I. (2024). Selection of a green contractor for the implementation of a solar power plant project. Symmetry, 16(4), 441.

Wang, Y., Wang, W., Deveci, M., & Yu, X. (2024). An integrated interval-valued spherical fuzzy Choquet integral based decision making model for prioritizing risk in Fine-Kinney. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 127, 107437.

Anjum, M., Kraiem, N., Min, H., Daradkeh, Y. I., Dutta, A. K., & Shahab, S. (2025). Integrating intuitionistic fuzzy and MCDM methods for sustainable energy management in smart factories. PLoS ONE, 20(1), e0315251.

Tamer, Z., Demir, G., Darıcı, S., & Pamučar, D. (2025). Understanding twitter in crisis: A roadmap for public sector decision makers with multi-criteria decision making. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–37.

Zhang, S., & Esangbedo, M. O. (2025). Urban scenic spot activity center ınvestment: Strategic construction company selection using the Grey System-II thinking compromise ranking of alternatives from distance to ıdeal solution multi-criteria decision-making method. Systems, 13(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13010067

Zhang, H., Gu, C.-L., Gu, L.-W., & Zhang, Y. (2011). The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness by TOPSIS & information entropy—A case in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Tourism Management, 32, 443–451.

Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management Decision, 57(9), 2501–2519.

Zhao, D.-Y., Ma, Y.-Y., & Lin, H.-L. (2022). Using the entropy and TOPSIS models to evaluate sustainable development of islands: A case in China. Sustainability, 14, 3707. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063707

Chodha, V., Dubey, R., Kumar, R., Singh, S., & Kaur, S. (2022). Selection of industrial arc welding robot with TOPSIS and Entropy MCDM techniques. Materials Today: Proceedings, 50, 709–715.

Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(2), 267–283.

Ayan, B., Abacıoğlu, S., & Basilio, M. P. (2023). A comprehensive review of the novel weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making. Information, 14(5), 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050285

Arman, K., & Özçil, A. (2022). Finansal performans analizinde farklı objektif ağırlıklandırma yöntemlerinin sıralamalara etkisi [The effect of different objective weighting methods on rankings in financial performance analysis]. In İ. Altındağ & T. E. Çiftçi (Eds.), Ekonomi ve Finans Alanında Güncel Akademik Çalışmalar (pp. 163–205). Gazi Kitabevi.

Luo, Y., Zhang, X., Qin, Y., Yang, Z., & Liang, Y. (2021). Tourism attraction selection with sentiment analysis of online reviews based on probabilistic linguistic term sets and the IDOCRIW-COCOSO model. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 23(1), 295–308.

Puška, A., Nedeljković, M., Stojanović, I., & Božanić, D. (2023). Application of fuzzy TRUST CRADIS method for selection of sustainable suppliers in agribusiness. Sustainability, 15(3), 2578.