Hybrid rough set and data envelopment analysis approach to technology prioritisation

    Ewa Chodakowska   Affiliation
    ; Joanicjusz Nazarko   Affiliation


The complexity and speed of change in technological systems pose new challenges to technology management. Particular attention should be given to the issue of modelling the uncertainty of assessments and creating rules for determining the weights of the technology assessment criteria. The article aims to present a comprehensive hybrid technology prioritisation model based on the Data Envelopment Analysis and the concept of Rough Sets. The technology prioritisation process that uses the proposed model includes three consecutive stages: (i) the formulation of technology assessment matrix, (ii) the removal of the criteria redundancy based on indiscernibility relation defined in the Rough Set Theory, (iii) the development of rough variables and prioritisation using the DEA super-efficiency model. The combination of DEA and RS is a unique proposal to classify and rank objects based on the tabular representation of their conditional attributes under circumstances of uncertainty. Application of the developed hybrid model to the real data of the technology foresight project “NT FOR Podlaskie 2020” positively verified the assumed effects of its use. The obtained results allow a more objective and rational justification of the chosen technology, simplification of interpretation and better authentication of results from the perspective of decision-makers.

First published online 8 May 2020

Keyword : Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Rough Sets (RS), hybrid model, technology prioritisation, technology management, technology assessment

How to Cite
Chodakowska, E., & Nazarko, J. (2020). Hybrid rough set and data envelopment analysis approach to technology prioritisation. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 26(4), 885-908.
Published in Issue
Jun 12, 2020
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Aaltonen, M., & Sanders, T. I. (2006). Identifying systems’ new initial conditions as influence points for the future. Foresight, 8(3), 28–35.

Amin, G.R., & Emrouznejad, A. (2013). A new DEA model for technology selection in the presence of ordinal data, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 65, 1567–1572.

Anderson, T. R., Hollingsworth, K., & Inman, L. (2001). Assessing the rate of change in the enterprise database system market over time using DEA. In PICMET ‘01. Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology. Proceedings, Vol. 1: Book of Summaries. IEEE.

Atanassov, K. T. (1983, June 7–9). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. In Proceedings of the VII ITKR’s Session, Sofia, Bulgaria (reprinted in International Journal Bioautomation (2016), 20, 1–6).

Atanassov, K. T. (2017). Type-1 Fuzzy Sets and Intuitionistic. Fuzzy Sets, Algorithms, 10(3), 106.

Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2017). Improving green flexibility through advanced manufacturing technology investment: Modeling the decision process. International Journal of Production Economics, 188, 86–104.

Belton, V., & Vickers, S. P. (1993). Demystifying DEA – a visual interactive approach based on multiple criteria analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44(9), 883–896.

Cagnin, C., Havas, A., & Saritas, O. (2013). Future-oriented technology analysis: Its potential to address disruptive transformations. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80(3), 379–385.

Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.

Chodakowska, E. (2019). Hybrydowy model priorytetyzacji technologii. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Białostockiej.

Chodakowska, E., & Nazarko, J. (2017a). Environmental DEA method for assessing productivity of European countries. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 23(4), 589–607.

Chodakowska, E., & Nazarko, J. (2017b). Network DEA models for evaluating couriers and messengers. Procedia Engineering, 182, 106–111.

Ciflikli, C., & Kahya-Ozyirmidokuz, E. (2012). Enhancing product quality of a process. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112(8), 1181–1200.

Cuhls, K., Blind, K., & Grupp, H. (2002). Innovations for our Future, Delphi ’98: New foresight on science and technology. Publisher Physica-Verlag.

Decker, M., & Ladikas, M. (Eds.). (2004). Bridges between science, society and policy. Technology assessment – methods and impacts. Springer-Verlag Heidelberg.

Doyle, J., & Green, R. (1993). Data envelopment analysis and multiple criteria decision making. Omega, 21(6), 713–715.

Durand, T. (2003). Twelve lessons from ‘Key Technologies 2005’: the French technology foresight exercise. Journal of Forecasting, 22(2–3), 161–177.

Ejdys, J. & Halicka, K. (2018). Sustainable adaptation of new technology – the case of humanoids used for the care of older adults. Sustainability, 10(10), 3770.

Ejdys, J., Matuszak-Flejszman, A., Szymanski, M., Ustinovicius, L., Shevchenko, G., & Lulewicz-Sas, A. (2016). Crucial factors for improving the ISO14001 Environmental Management System. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(1), 52–73.

Fan, J.-L., Zhang, X., Zhang, J., & Peng, S. (2015). Efficiency evaluation of CO2 utilization technologies in China: A super-efficiency DEA analysis based on expert survey. Journal of CO2 Utilization, 11, 54–62.

Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 120(3), 253–290.

Fodor, J., & Roubens, M. (1994). Fuzzy preference modelling and multicriteria decision support. Kluwer.

Gordon, T. J., & Glenn, J. C. (2004, May 13–14). Integration, comparisons, and frontier of futures research methods. In EU-US Seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, Spain.

Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., & Słowiński, R. (2001). Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 129(1), 1–47.

Halicka, K. (2016). Innovative classification of methods of the future-oriented technology analysis. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(4), 574–597.

He, Y., Pang, Y., Zhang, Q., Jiao, Z., & Chen, Q. (2018). Comprehensive evaluation of regional clean energy development levels based on principal component analysis and rough set theory. Renewable Energy, 122, 643–653.

Hemert, van P., & Nijkamp, P. (2010). Knowledge investments, business R&D and innovativeness of countries: A qualitative meta-analytic comparison. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(3), 369–384.

Jian, L., Liu, S., & Liu, Y. (2010). The selection of regional key technology based on the hybrid model of grey fixed clustering and variable precision rough set. In ISTASC’10 Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS International Conference on Systems Theory and Scientific Computation (pp. 54–59).

Ju-Long, D. (1982). Control problems of grey systems. Systems and Control Letters, 1(5), 288–294.

Karlsen, J. E., & Karlsen, H. (2013). Classification of tools and approaches applicable in foresight studies. In M. Giaoutzi, & B. Sapio (Eds.), Recent developments in foresight methodologies: Vol. 1. Complex networks and dynamic systems. Springer.

Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons.

Kwon, D. S., Cho, J. H., & Sohn, S. Y. (2017). Comparison of technology efficiency for CO2 emissions reduction among European countries based on DEA with decomposed factors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 151, 109–120.

Lai, X., Liu, J. X., & Georgiev, G. (2016). Low carbon technology integration innovation assessment index review based on rough set theory – an evidence from construction industry in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 88–96.

Lee, C., Lee, H., Seol, H., & Park, Y. (2012). Evaluation of new service concepts using rough set theory and group analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 3404–3412.

Liang, X., & Dijk, van M. P. (2016). Identification of decisive factors determining the continued use of rainwater harvesting systems for agriculture irrigation in Beijing. Water, 8(1), 7.

Lim, D.-J., Jahromi, S. R., Anderson, T. R., & Tudorie, A.-A. (2015). Comparing technological advancement of hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) in different market segments. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 97, 140–153.

Liu, B. (2004). Uncertain theory: An introduction to its axiomatic foundation. Springer.

Liu, Y., Sun, C., & Xu, S. (2013). Eco-efficiency assessment of water systems in China. Water Resource Management, 27(14), 4927–4939.

Łunarski, J. (2009). Zarządzenie technologiami. Ocena i doskonalenie. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Rzeszowskiej.

Luo, J.-L., & Hu, Z.-H. (2015). Risk paradigm and risk evaluation of farmers cooperatives’ technology innovation. Economic Modelling, 44, 80–85.

Magruk, A. (2011). Innovative classification of technology foresight methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(4), 700–716.

Magruk, A. (2017). Concept of uncertainty in relation to the foresight research. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 9(1), 46–55.

Martin, B. (1995). Foresight in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 7(2), 139–168.

Martin, B. R. (2010), The origins of the concept of ‘foresight’ in science and technology: An insider’s perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(9), 1438–1447.

Miles, I. (2008). From futures to foresight. In L. Georghiou, J. C. Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, & R. Popper (Eds.), The handbook of technology foresight. Concepts and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Miles, I., & Keenan, M. (2003). Overview of methods used in foresight. The Technology Foresight for Organisers Training Course, Ankara, United Nations Industrial Development Organisation.

Molodtsov, D. A. (1999). Soft set theory – First results. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 37(4), 19–31.

Nazarko, J., & Magruk, A. (Eds.). (2013). Kluczowe nanotechnologie w gospodarce Podlasia. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Białostockiej.

Nazarko, Ł. (2015). Technology assessment in construction sector as a strategy towards sustainability. Procedia Engineering, 122, 290–295.

Nazarko, Ł. (2017). Future-oriented technology assessment. Procedia Engineering, 182, 504–509.

Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2003). Comparing DEA and MCDM Method. In Multi-Objective Programming and Goal Programming. Advances in Soft Computing 21. Springer, Heidelberg.

Pawlak, Z. (1982). Rough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, 11(5), 341– 356.

Pawlak, Z., & Skowron, A. (2007). Rough sets: Some extensions. Information Sciences, 177, 28–40.

Papagapiou, A., Mingers, J., & Thanassoulis, E. (1997). Would you buy a used car with DEA? OR Insight, 10(1), 13–19.

Pietrobelli, C., & Puppato, F. (2016). Technology foresight and industrial strategy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 110, 117–125.

Popper R. (2009). Mapping foresight revealing how Europe and other world regions navigate into the future.

Popper, R. (2008). How are foresight methods selected? Foresight, 10(6), 62–89.

Popper, R., & Korte, W. B. (2004, May 13–14). Xtreme Euforia: combining foresight methods. In EU-US Seminar: New Technology Foresight. Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, Spain.

Porter, A. L. (1995). Technology assessment. Impact Assessment, 13(2), 135–151.

Porter, A. L. (2010). Technology foresight: types and methods. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 6(1–3).

Porter, A. L., Ashton, W. B., Clar, G., Coates, J. F., Cuhls, K., Cunningham, S. W., Ducatel, K., Duin, van der P., Georghiou, L., Gordon, T., Linstone, H., Marchau, V., Massari, G., Miles, I., Mogee, M., Salo, A., Scapolo, F., Smits, R., & Thissen, W. [Technology Futures Analysis Methods Working Group] (2004). Technology futures analysis: Toward integration of the field and new methods. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(3), 287–303.

Predki, B., Słowiński, R., Stefanowski, J., Susmaga, R., & Wilk, S. (1998). ROSE – Software Implementation of the Rough Set Theory. In L. Polkowski & A. Skowron (Eds.), Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 1424, 605–608. Springer-Verlag.

Rohrbeck, R., & Gemünden, H. G. (2011). Corporate foresight: Its three roles in enhancing the innovation capacity of a firm. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78(2), 231–243.

Roosth, S., & Silbey, S. (2009). Science and technology studies: From controversies to Posthumanist Social Theory. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Roy, B. (1990). Wielokryterialne wspomaganie decyzji. Wydawnictwa Naukowo-Techniczne.

Sambuc, R. (1975). Fonctions φ-floues. Application à l’aide au diagnostic en pathologie thyroidienne (Doctoral dissertation). Université Marseille, France.

Sánchez-Torres, J. M., & Miles, I. (2017). The role of future-oriented technology analysis in e-Government: a systematic review. European Journal of Futures Research, 5(1), 1–18.

Shabani, A., Saen, R. F., & Torabipour, S. M. R. (2014). A new data envelopment analysis (DEA) model to select eco-efficient technologies in the presence of undesirable outputs. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 16(3), 513–525.

Sharma, S., Dua, A., Singh, M., Kumar, N., & Prakash, S. (2018). Fuzzy rough set-based energy management system for self-sustainable smart city. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 3633– 3644.

Shiau, T.-A., & Chuen-Yu, J.-K. (2016). Developing an indicator system for measuring the social sustainability of offshore wind power farms. Sustainability, 8(5), 470.

Shiraz, R. K., Fukuyama, H., Tavana, M., & Caprio, Di D. (2016). An integrated data envelopment analysis and free disposal hull framework for cost-efficiency measurement using rough sets. Applied Soft Computing, 46, 204–219.

Shuai, J. J., & Li, H. L. (2005). Using rough set and worst practice DEA in business failure prediction. In D. Ślęzak, J. Yao, J. F. Peters, W. Ziarko, & X. Hu (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 3642. Rough sets, fuzzy sets, data mining, and granular computing (pp. 503–510). Springer, Heidelberg.

Sokolov, A., Veselitskaya, N., Carabias, V., & Yildirim, O. (2019). Scenario-based identification of key factors for smart cities development policies. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 148.

Srivastava, S., & Misra, M. (2016). Assessing and forecasting technology dynamics in smartphones: a TFDEA approach. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(7), 783–797.

Stewart, T. J. (1996). Relationships between DEA and MCDM. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(5), 654–665.

Sueyoshi, T., & Goto, M. (2014). Environmental assessment for corporate sustainability by resource utilization and technology innovation: DEA radial measurement on Japanese industrial sectors. Energy Economics, 46, 295–307.

Tohidi, G., & Valizadeh, P. (2011). A non-radial rough DEA model. International Journal of Mathematical Modelling & Computation, 1(4), 257–261.

Voros, J. 2006. Introducing a classification framework for prospective methods. Foresight, 8(2), 43–56.

Wang, X., Jia, F., & Wang, Y. (2015). Evaluation of clean coal technologies in China: Based on rough set theory. Energy & Environment, 26(6–7), 985–995.

Wang, C.-H., Chin, Y.-C., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2010). Mining the R&D innovation performance processes for high-tech firms based on rough set theory. Technovation, 30(7–8), 447–458.

Weber, K. M., Gudowsky, N., & Aichholzer, G. (2019). Foresight and technology assessment for the Austrian parliament – Finding new ways of debating the future of industry 4.0. Futures 109, 240251.

Wu, H.-Y., & Lin, H.-Y. (2012). A hybrid approach to develop an analytical model for enhancing the service quality of e learning. Computers & Education 58(4), 1318-1338.

Xu J., Li, B., & Wu, D. (2009). Rough data envelopment analysis and its application to supply chain performance evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics 122(2), 628-638.

Yu, P., & Lee, J. H. (2013). A hybrid approach using two-level SOM and combined AHP rating and AHP/DEA-AR method for selecting optimal promising emerging technology. Expert System with Applications 40, 300–314.

Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8(3), 338-353.

Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J. & Kar, S. (2019). Multi-Objective and Multi-Attribute Optimization for Sustainable Development Decision Aiding. Sustainability 11, 3069.

Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods in economics: An overview. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 17(2), 397-427.

Zeng, X. T., Huang, G. H., Yang, X. L., Wang, X., Fu, H., Li, Y.P., & Li, Z. (2016). A developed fuzzystochastic optimization for coordinating human activity and eco-environmental protection in a regional wetland ecosystem under uncertainties. Ecological Engineering, 97, 207-230.