S2444569X23000896

Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8 (2023) 100393
Journal of Innovation
& Knowledge
ht t p s: // w w w . j our na ls .e l se vi e r .c om /j ou r na l -o f - in no va t i on -a n d- kn owl e dg e
A decision support model for evaluating risks in the digital economy

transformation of the manufacturing industry
Chao Shanga,b, Jian Jiangc,*, Lan Zhud, Parvaneh Saeidie
a
Institute of New Structural Economics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
b
National School of Development, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
c
Business school, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, Xinjiang 830091, China
d
Institute of Quantitative &Technological Economics, CASS, Beijing 100732, China
e
Facultad de Administracio n y Negocios, Universidad Tecnolo
gica Indoamerica, Quito, Ecuador
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article History: In recent decades, digital technologies have seriously changed socioeconomic systems on a global scale.
Received 12 August 2022 Unfortunately, consequential issues have remained mostly uninvestigated. The literature lacks research into
Accepted 10 April 2023 the risks that may arise in the procedure of developing digital capabilities that have considerable impacts on
Available online 14 June 2023
firms’ innovative growth. In addition, inadequate research has been conducted on challenges that may arise
when a business is being developed in the context of the digital economy. Moreover, the advent of new risks
Keywords:
specific to the digital economy has not been addressed in the overall system of modern economic relations.
Digital transformation
As a result, the current study aims to investigate the major areas of relevance to transforming companies
Manufacturing industry
Digital technologies
into the digital economy, considering the impacts of new risks encountered during such transitions. Along
Risk assessment this line, this paper develops a decision support model for evaluating risks in the digital economy transfor-
Decision support model mation of the manufacturing industry. This approach is applied to compute the weights and the study ranks
the most important risks for digital economy transformation in the manufacturing industry. In addition, the
proposed method model is implemented to find industries’ priorities of different risks for the digital econ-
omy transformation of the manufacturing industry. Finally, a case study is carried out to assess the most
important risk for the digital transformation of the manufacturing industry. The results show that lack of top
management involvement (f7), with a weight of 0.0563, an unstable market environment in terms of the
uncertainty industry, and market volatility, with a weight of 0.0542, are the most considerable risks for the
digital economy transformation (DET) of the manufacturing industry. Additionally, comparison and sensitiv-
ity analyses are made to illustrate the advantage of the presented approach.
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Introduction (ICTs) derived economic change (Kijek & Kijek, 2019). During these
years, connected sensors were embedded into an increasing number
Recently, the digital economy has been a focal point for the aca- of objects, novel digital and end-user devices emerged, data usage
demic community, particularly owing to the given estimates of dou- grew due to the rapid spread of data analytics, big data, and algorith-
ble-digit annual growth worldwide, especially in countries belonging mic decision-making, and novel automation technologies appeared
to the Global South (Ma et al., 2022; Pan et al., 2022). The key factors on a global scale (Bukht & Heeks, 2017).
driving such emergence are mainly political and economic; however, The global growth of the internet and ICT has caused the
they are also rooted in technological innovations (Ding et al., 2022; manufacturing industry to be infused with digital information tech-
Ho€ flinger et al., 2018). First, the internet emerged in the 1990s and nology (Skare & Riberio Soriano, 2021). Digitalization has seriously
then became a foundation for economic changes that, in turn, led to affected the market, corporate communications, and manufacturing
the digital economy. Then, in two decades, from 2000 to 2020, a conditions and has forced firms to constantly change to survive the
series of innovative information and communication technologies tense competition in the market (Schiffer et al., 2018). Therefore, the
manufacturing industry worldwide is undertaking a phase of strate-
gic digital changes. “Since the late 1950s, digital technologies (DTLs)
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: chaoshang@nsd.pku.edu.cn (C. Shang), 107552102353@stu.xju.
have been used to facilitate strategic and operational changes across
deu.cn (J. Jiang), zhulan@cass.org.cn (L. Zhu), parvanehsaeidi@uti.edu.ec (P. Saeidi). different sectors around the world” (Li, 2020). Consequently,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100393
2444-569X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
C. Shang, J. Jiang, L. Zhu et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8 (2023) 100393
companies are being increasingly engaged in an unstable digital their long-run policies by taking into consideration the DTs expected
economy because of the nonstop growth of technology, the exhaus- to make a revolution in their industries.
tive utilization of the internet and mobile communications, and the The rapid development of information technologies leads to serious
rapid advent of novel DTs, e.g., the Internet of Things (IoT), 5G, artifi- structural changes in established business processes in various indus-
cial intelligence (AI), big data, distributed ledger technologies, and tries (Kozlov et al., 2017), which requires the development of DT tech-
the multicloud environment (Li, 2020). Within such a context, digital nologies for risk management (RM) in the industrial area. There are
transformation (DT) is defined as “the modern-day fight to survive several past scholars who describe the development results of digital
the existential threat of digital disruption” (Li, 2020). As a result, to transformation technologies for risk management (Ballestar et al.,
remain competitive within a context immersed in a volatile digital 2021; Masuda et al., 2017; Menzefricke et al., 2021; Romero et al.,
economy, companies require a certain degree of DT. Thus, companies 2019; Skare & Riberio Soriano, 2021). However, risks exist pervasively
are attempting to incorporate ICT with novel operational technolo- in the real world, and their probability is particularly high when there
gies, and DT means the constant implementation and integration of are rapid changes to markets and technologies. Because of using and
information, communication, and operational technologies for regu- updating the new generation of ICTs as well as collecting and organiz-
larly updating, building, and incorporating digital capabilities sup- ing users’ big data, the risks in the DT context will grow (Liu, 2022). In
porting strategic and operational transformation to create novel addition, in spite of the recent high eagerness of enterprises for the
competitive advantages within a digital economy setting (Romero et adoption of DT, they have been reported to be successful in this pro-
al., 2019) cess in less than 30% of cases (Silberg & Manyika, 2019). Therefore, it
The DT has encouraged further research on transhumanism; this can be said that DT in the manufacturing sector is not easily adopted;
way, it has affected some relevant fields, e.g., cybersecurity and sus- rather, it is a process loaded with different risks. The DT-related risks
tainability. One of the transhumanism theories (Bostrom, 2003; Hux- and security research are closely related to developments in other
ley, 1968) maintains that robotics and digital technologies are domains such as mobile devices, the internet, Industry 4.0, artificial
pushing humankind towards the advanced level of hybrid coexis- intelligence, IoT, and robotics (de Bem Machado et al., 2022; Ogie et
tence with technology and “singularity” (Kurzweil, 2005). In addition, al., 2018). DT in healthcare systems is investigated by considering how
these technologies are closely related to the metaverse or cyberspace the patient-doctor interactions might change because of online meet-
as a type of digital universe. It still seems to be a distant future; how- ings or health parameters monitoring by wearable devices (Aşurog lu
ever, some novel innovations, e.g., neurotechnologies, show that et al., 2018; Fernandez-Carame s & Fraga-Lamas, 2018).
some changes have already occurred, which could result in a “global The literature still lacks enough research into how human beings
mindset change” (Benedikter et al., 2010). From a critical viewpoint, or social groups’ behavior will appear to the technical and organiza-
it can be said that the features of the transhumanist movement direct tional prospects and definite ethical queries, which have been ana-
us towards an overall belief in the improvement of biomedical and lyzed enough. For example, many studies have been carried out on
technology and the existence of enthusiasm for future progress with novel applications of brain implants to find how to restore eyesight
the support of technological inventions (McNamee & Edwards, 2006). or mobility after paralysis; nevertheless, this body of research has lit-
A new area of interest in the academic community is whether such tle connection with the issues of human and social vulnerability
phenomena have resulted only from technological change or also issues key issue in relation to disaster risks. Digitalization supported
from cultural/social transformation (Petrie & Wessely, 2002), which by progressive technology comprises many risks. The more serious
has led to some conceptual developments representing an integrative problem is that the manufacturing sector has adapted to the produc-
or inclusive approach (Dominici, 2018). Briefly, DTLs applications tion-oriented model of development and, on the other hand, lacks
have grown without integrating the challenges, such as the social adequate experience in DT. This has made this sector bound to meet
vulnerability of these technologies; therefore, there is still a need to any new problems and risks in this new industrial transformation. A
integrate the current risk and disaster conceptual procedures with few studies have addressed the risks induced by DT, but few have dis-
theoretical developments of DT. cussed the risks brought by DT to the manufacturing industry. There-
DT is the process of transforming business activities to completely fore, this study conducted a comprehensive survey using the current
use the opportunities induced by DTLs (Demirkan et al., 2016). In this literature review to identify the most important risk for DT in the
process, novel DTLs are utilized to improve core business processes, manufacturing industry.
for instance, improving customers’ experience, increasing the effi- This study introduces a novel decision support model and uses it
ciency of the operation using automation, or creating new business to take the efficiency and flexibility of Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PFSs).
prospects (Horlacher et al., 2016). Several DTLs, for example, robots, Accordingly, a novel decision support model was designed to evalu-
smart equipment, sophisticated software, and embedded devices, are ate digital economy transformation in the manufacturing industry. In
increasingly playing more dominant and transformative roles for this way, the novel decision support model is implemented to find
companies (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014). The progress of the digital the weight of different risks for digital economy transformation in
revolution of cyber-physical systems has created many new opportu- the manufacturing industry. Then this approach is an elegant
nities for both large companies and entrepreneurs. According to approach to handling multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) prob-
Accenture and Oxford Economics, novel digital technologies could lems. Further, the presented model is implemented to evaluate the
add US$1.36 trillion to the global economic output by 2020 (Demir- most important risks for digital economy transformation in the
kan et al., 2016). manufacturing industry. The key contributions of the presented work
Recently, the global economy has been developing in a DT, are discussed as
dubbed Industry 4.0, during which the trends of the widespread
introduction of information technologies are planned and imple- & To conduct a survey method with current literature review and
mented (Bril et al., 2017). DT helps companies regulate their opera- expert interviews to recognize the most important risk for digital
tions so that they can completely capitalize on the benefits of digital economy transformation in the manufacturing industry.
changes. In recent years, a large number of international companies & To develop a comprehensive framework using a survey approach
and even governments have attempted to develop strategic foresight to investigate the most important risks for digital economy trans-
research into the influences of DT (Ebert & Duarte, 2018). For exam- formation in the manufacturing industry.
ple, companies have progressively comprehended the significance of & To introduce an integrated decision-making model, the developed
data, and business analytics applications are becoming regular busi- framework to evaluate the most important risks for digital econ-
ness practices (Baykasog lu & Go €lcu€ k, 2019). Companies establish omy transformation in the manufacturing industry.
2
& To propose the novel decision support model to rank the indus- Companies are naturally attracted to DT; on the other hand, it cannot
tries and analyze and assess the most important risk for digital be confidently said that DT would bring tangible benefits to compa-
economy transformation in the manufacturing industry. nies and increase their values. According to the findings of a survey
& The novel decision support model evaluates and ranks the most carried out by Wipro Digital in 2017 in the context of the United
important risks for digital transformation in the manufacturing States, half of the senior executive respondents indicated their
industry. To present the sensitivity and comparison analyses for respective companies had experienced failure in their DT process.
the validation of the integrated decision support approach. Fitzgerald et al. (2014) reported a paradox in the case of digital tech-
nologies: managers have confidence in the benefits of adopting DT;
however, they are unsatisfied with the progress of DT in their compa-
The rest of the paper is provided based on the following sections. nies. Practically, DT adoption has its own complexities due to the
Section 2 presents the literature review and related works on the huge costs, learning curves, and adjustments involved. Accordingly, a
most important risk for digital economy transformation in the key research question is whether a company’s DT adoption enhances
manufacturing industry with applications. Next, section 3 provides its performance quality.
the presented decision support model. Then, Section 4 presents the Nowadays, the use of digital data brings much value, which has
results obtained from the case study, sensitivity analysis, and com- caused new regulatory concerns to arise, from privacy to taxation
parative study. Finally, Section 5 concludes the whole study. and workforce transition. In such a situation, public regulators expect
digital technologies to support economic development on a global
Literature review scale. At this phase, there is a need for a cautionary note. The devel-
opment of digital technologies development should be observed as
Digital economy transformation neither neutral nor completely independent of the regulations
formed to govern them. According to the Science and Technology
Only advanced technology can drive the efficient progress of com- Studies (STS) (Prasad, 2021; Silvast & Virtanen, 2021), novel technol-
modity markets from the perspective of the digital economy (Litvi- ogies, as well as their regulatory regimes, are affected by the specific
nenko, 2020). The creation of a procedure of technological political/social contexts from where they have emerged (Cozzens,
development on the basis of the doctrines of cognition could be an 1989). Accordingly, public regulators can impact the utilization of
effective approach. The IoT paradigm is susceptible and adaptable to specific technologies at different points in time by adopting new reg-
novel principles and architectures in different science and technology ulations. When it comes to digital technologies, such capacities of
regions (Liu et al., 2017). For the movement from a physical to a digi- public regulators could be confined by a number of digital technology
tal economy, different types of physical goods and services are characteristics.
required to be replaced by electronic information. All tangible assets A body of literature defines DT (Chen & Tian, 2022; Kraus et al.,
need to be changed to digital data that could be regarded as key 2022; Yang et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021). Agarwal et al. (2010)
assets for private firms. The case of Uber reveals that possessing pro- define DT as applications of information technology (IT) with mea-
prietary algorithms and information on a large number of users could surement and quantification of IT and its benefits and impact, includ-
be more beneficial than possessing the physical capital needed to ing beyond the traditional realm of IT. The definition of DT by
offer a specific service (Beaumier et al., 2020). The employment of Fitzgerald et al. (2014) is well-received. They state digital transforma-
DTLs decreases the transaction costs, which ultimately support the tion as “the use of new DTLs (social media, mobile, analytics or
‘servicification’ of the economy (Lanz & Maurer, 2015), through embedded devices) to enable major business improvements (such as
which goods are more and more consumed as services. Many hope enhancing customer experience, streamlining operations or creating
that ‘big data’ has the potential to direct us toward the achievement new business models).” (p.4). Interestingly, Piccinini et al. (2015) and
of considerable efficiency and productivity gains (Mayer-Scho € nberger Majchrzak et al. (2016) share similar definitions of digital transforma-
& Cukier, 2013). tion (Fitzgerald et al., 2014). Digitization has developed a transforma-
In modern times, digital economy formation is one of the most tional potential that is deeply modifying human beings, societies, and
controverting propensities (Popkova & Sergi, 2020). Automatization, the Earth. Similar to any key societal transformation, digitization
on the one hand, helps to enhance the effectiveness in the process of offers major opportunities for development and, at the same time,
producing complex goods, which ensures high degrees of meticu- major risks with destructive consequences for societies.
lousness when spending the available resources and minimizes the However, the literature is loaded with many studies conducted on
volume of waste attributed to production and consumption. More- the digital economy and also on the measurement and management
over, executing routine processes by machines makes the stage ready of its global competitiveness (Horoshko et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021).
for the creative activities of a modern human, which widely range These studies have adopted an approach to investigating the digital
from managing the production processes to designing innovative economy as a prestige element of the economic system. This is the
technologies, systems, and processes. On the other hand, a new type treatment of the digital economy, which slows down the way it is
of thinking, i.e., digital, is formed. In the decision-making process, the formed and developed. People and businesses (that are two inter-
sociocultural factors (which have lost a great deal of their significance ested parties) do not see the practical benefits of the digital economy
due to the impacts of globalization) would remain in the background. formation and indicate their objection against the redistribution of
As a result, the digital economy causes several challenges to the idea national resources to the damage of social projects and projects for
of humanism and makes human society return to “natural selection” supporting business in favor of the projects in the sphere of the digi-
whose consequence is the distorted treatment of social justice as the tal economy. The review of the existing literature showed that the
victory of the strong over the weak. interrelationship between the digital economy and the quality of
The progress of the new economy has made digitalization a trend. growth of modern economic systems had not been clarified yet.
DT refers to the utilization of new digital technologies to improve a
business (Fitzgerald et al., 2014). It applies digital technology to oper- Risk assessment of the digital economy transformation
ations, business model innovation, or digital strategies in a way to
add more value to a company (Singh et al., 2021; Verhoef et al., To perform DT projects, companies have to reorganize their busi-
2021). The Annual Report on the Development of Global Digital Econ- ness processes, which causes some challenges to arise. Many steps
omy Competitiveness reports that the United States, China, and Sin- have already been taken toward DT projects, though numerous com-
gapore are the top three countries in economy-wide digitalization. panies are experiencing some obstacles even in starting new projects
3
(Young & Rogers, 2019). Gale and Aarons (2018) believe that holding et al., 2017, Osterrieder et al., 2019), and cyber-physical systems
an interview with company managers regarding their standing from (Wang et al., 2015). The current paper proposes a new 3-step MCDM
the perspective of being digitally transformed companies shows that model through the hybridization of perceptual reasoning and interval
their limitless optimism has vanished in the past four years, and only type-2 fuzzy (IT2F)- best-worst method (BWM). This model could be
30% of them may believe that they could do the DT procedures in the applied to the assessment of the risks associated with a DT project in
next three years. Although digital transformation into a platform a real-life case study. Therefore, the predictive maintenance project
may be appealing as it enables external value creation through third- has the lowest risk magnitude with the linguistic label “Minor”,
party developers, transformation is also a source of multiple risks whereas the augmented reality (AR)-enhanced stock management
such as business risks, strategic risks, security risks, and investments shows the highest risk magnitude with “Major risk”.
risks (Nguyen Duc & Chirumamilla, 2019; Ren et al., 2012) As a result, in comparison to traditional firms, digital transforma-
Alternatively, the literature lacks tools capable of analyzing the tion diverts resources to riskier investments than product value-
risks associated the DT projects. These projects are risky and chal- enhancing investments as the scope of product value is broadened.
lenging; as a result, it is necessary to propose structured decision pro- This may be due to low digital literacy among managers and employ-
cedures for the purpose of guiding policymakers when attempting to ees (Engler, 2020), which may diminish the real value of investments.
manage the risks. Different conflicting factors are typically involved This handicaps the firm’s ability to communicate its value proposition
in the process of assessing the risks of DT projects; therefore, evaluat- to the market, while its traditional rivals are better able to do so due
ing these factors could be recognized as a MCDM problem. Although to their experience and can be more aggressive in their investments.
new methods are appearing increasingly in the relevant literature, Apart from the usually increased risk, this suggests that firms con-
several characteristics play important roles in a prosperous risk templating risky digital transformation must also anticipate the
assessment application in real-life cases. response of their rivals (Deepa et al., 2021; Prabadevi et al., 2022;
It is worth mentioning that the concept of DT is still in its infancy Karhu & Ritala, 2021; da Cunha et al., 2022; Markides & Sosa, 2013)
stage. Bruskin et al. (2017) presented some realistic instances of and its impact on their profitability. Therefore, digital transformation
developing support methods for digital corporate management and is a complex organizational change where firms must carefully bal-
also defined the prospects. Masuda et al. (2017) discussed DT-related ance increased market opportunities with the associated with differ-
risks that may arise in the enterprise architecture domains and also ent risks. However, few studies have addressed the risks of digital
presented some strategies for risk mitigation through developing economy transformation. For example, Yucel (2018) evaluate the
novel integrated system architecture. Yoo and Kim (2018) made an risks, drawbacks, and mitigation plans based on the different
analysis of the most important factors for the adoption of a cloud dynamic model to forecasting digital economy transformation strat-
computing system with the help of the analytic hierarchy process egy under several scenarios and conditions. Guryanova et al. (2020)
(AHP). Jayakrishnan et al. (2018) examined the digitalization meth- discussed and suggested a new method to evaluate the risks and
ods that are generally adopted in the transportation industry in challenges of socio-ethical problems in digital economy transforma-
Malaysia. Casey et al. (2018) made a discussion on the importance of tion. Gaponenko et al. (2021) considered the main features of risk
decentralization and big data capacities in the accomplishment of DT management in the area of digital economy transformation using an
projects in the field of forensics. Elezaj et al. (2018) examined the big analysis of the current literature review. Dokuchaev (2020) examined
data initiatives in regard to e-government in various countries. Fritz- and classified the main risks related to digital transformation in the
sche et al. (2018) found the differences between the statements of service of information and communications technology and telecom-
intergovernmental groups and the relevant literature to show the munication firms. Liu (2022) proposed a new risk prediction method
connection between DT and climate change. Bienhaus and Haddud to analyze the digital transformation of the supply chain in the
(2018) investigated the digitization of procurement and supply manufacturing sector using two machine learning methods, includ-
chains and examined their effects on the companies’ performance ing backpropagation neural network (BPNN) and principal compo-
quality. Filatova et al. (2018) studied the conceivable risks associated nent analysis (PCA). Nguyen Duc and Chirumamilla (2019) identified
with the DT process in the Eurasian Economic Union. the main security risks linked with digital transformation from the
A system assessment method was developed by Ramos et al. engineering management perspective using the literature review and
(2020) by integrating AHP and preference ranking organization focused groups method. Ali and Govindan (2021) evaluate the opera-
method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE) in order to assess tional risks for digital transformation in 302 Australian agri-food sup-
the requirements for industry 4.0. Young and Rogers (2019) reviewed ply chain companies. Tian et al. (2022) examined the impact of the
the DT foundational components focusing on the mining industry. risks for digital transformation in Chinese listed companies using
Ricciardi et al. (2019) discussed the role of DT in health services with panel data. Go € lcu
€ k (2020) proposed a new decision-making approach
a focus on the role of key factors, e.g., governance. Jones (2019) inves- to assess the digital transformation risks using perceptual reasoning
tigated the impact of DT on process safety in companies. Battisti et al. and interval type-2 fuzzy best-worst method (IT2F-BWM) in real-life
(2020) examined the interrelationships between risk management digital transformation projects.
and big data, focusing on the domain of corporate real estate. Eckhart This study has conducted a survey study to identify the main risks
et al. (2019) presented a discussion on the problems that may arise in associated with digital economy transformation. The results of this
the process of quantitative security risk assessments conducted on survey approach identified 21 risk factors that are: Risk of transfor-
industrial control systems. Through an exploratory study, Beller et al. mation caused in terms of information lag or information distortion
(2019) attempted to determine the criteria for selecting projects in (f1); Trust risk between partners (f2); Inability to identify risks (f3);
the digital era. Inflexible system architecture (f4); Inconsistent collaboration and dig-
Mitra and O’Regan (2020) examined the impacts of creative lead- ital resource matching risks among industry partners (f5); Ineffective
ership on the performance quality of the cyber asset market. In a knowledge acquisition (f6); Lack of top management involvement
study conducted by Scholz et al. (2020), an innovative approach was (f7); Risk of exposing data to the public (f8); Irrational decisions on
developed as a problem structuring and decision support for manag- risk management (f9); Inflexible system architecture (f10); The bleak
ing organizational susceptibility and resilience. They validated their prospect of industrial development (f11); Expensive on-cloud data
proposed multi-actor analysis on 18 companies of various types and auditing (f12); Low robustness for the cooperation stability (f13); Lim-
sizes. Moreover, the literature comprises several prominent instances ited control over the third-party services (f14); Inadequate consul-
of intelligent manufacturing, e.g., smart manufacturing (Wang et al., tancy and vendor support (f15); Poor digital technology for
2016), predictive maintenance (Wang et al., 2017), industry 4.0 (Liao integrating industry resources (f16); The unstable market
4
environment in terms of the uncertainty industry and market volatil- removal effects of criteria (MEREC), in order to evaluate the criteria
ity (f17); Risk of switching database modals (f18); Ineffective risk pre- weights. The MEREC uses each attribute’s removal effect upon the
vention (f19); Lack of demand services and high-quality digital alternatives’ evaluation to attain the attributes’ weights. Considering
industry (f20); Lack of expertise and human resources (f21). the deviations, evaluating an option based on the removal attribute is
a novel concept in identifying the attribute weights. Rani et al.
Proposed decision support model (2022a) discussed the MEREC-based ARAS method to treat the food
waste treatment method assessment on Fermatean fuzzy sets (FFSs).
The doctrine of intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs) is described by the Hezam et al. (2022b) introduced a hybrid MCDM methodology by
belongingness degree (BD) and non-belongingness degree (ND) with combining the MEREC-rank sum (RS) and double normalization-
the constraint that the sum of the BD and ND is 1 (Mishra et al., based multiple aggregation (DNMA) approaches with IFSs and
2022). Though, the challenge is that a certain condition may arise in applied them to evaluate the alternative fuel vehicles problem. In
the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem where decision the case of the subjective weighting model, SWARA is employed
experts (DEs) allocate the BD of 0.8 when an option holds the attri- to aid decision-makers in assigning their ranking values to the
bute and the degree of 0.4 when an option displeases the attribute. In selected criteria. This is the first study that develops an integrated
this situation, 0:8 þ 0:4 > 1, which cannot be effectively addressed by MEREC-SWARA weighting and GLDS-based method under the
IFS (Yager, 2014; Rani et al., 2021). To bridge this gap, Yager (2014) PFSs setting to assess the critical risks that may be induced by
developed the Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PFSs) that are able to meet the the digital economy transformation (DET) in the manufacturing
condition where the squares sum of BD and ND is 1. As a result, industry.
PFSs are recognized more effective than IFSs in the description of Here, first, we discuss the notion of the PFSs as follows:
their ambiguous nature (Zhang & Xu, 2014; Rani et al., 2021; Mishra
Definition 1. (Yager, 2014). Let V be a fixed set. A PFS F on V is
et al., 2022a). In recent years, an MCDM approach was developed by
Rani et al. (2019) with information measures for the problem of described as the BD bF and the ND nF; satisfying a constraint 0
selecting optimal renewable energy sources in the Indian context. 2 2
After that, Rani et al. (2020a) introduced the technique for order of bF ðxi Þ þ nF ðxi Þ 1 Mathematically, it can be defined as f f
preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) model method

h xi ; bF ðxi ÞnF ðxi Þ i jxi 2 V g where bF : V ! ½0; 1 and nF : V ! ½0; 1.
applicable to selecting a sustainable recycling partner (SRP) in the qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PFSs setting. A weighted aggregated sum and product assessment For each xi 2 V ; F ¼ pF ðxi Þ ¼ 1 b2F ðxi Þ n2F ðxi Þ is called the indeter-
(WASPAS) model was proposed by Rani et al. (2020b) to be used in minacy degree. Additionally, a “Pythagorean fuzzy number (PFN)” is
the multi-criteria physician selection problem where there was
denoted by } ¼ ðb} n} Þ wherein b} ; n} 2 ½0; 1 and 0 < b2} þ b2} 1.
uncertain information. With the use of the additive ratio assessment
(ARAS) and step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) Definition 2. (Zhang & Xu, 2014). Let } ¼ ðb} n} Þ be a PFN. Then score
models, Rani et al. (2022b) attempted to evaluate and select health- and accuracy values of } are defined as
care waste (HCW) treatment options. Liu et al. (2021) made evalua-
Sð}Þ ¼ 0:5 b2k n2k þ 1 ;

tion and prioritization the medical-waste treatment methods ð1Þ
(MWTMs) by means of the combined compromise solution (CoCoSo)
tool on PFSs. H ð}Þ ¼ b2k þ n2k : ð2Þ
Regarding the MCDM tools, DEs typically provide high signifi-
cance to the weights of the attributes normally described in the liter- Next, this section develops a PF-MEREC-SWARA-GLDS method
ature as objective and subjective weights (Kersuliene et al., 2010). The under the PFSs setting for treating the MCDM applications. The pro-
subjective weights reflect DEs’ thoughts, which take into account the cedure of the presented approach is given by
attributes’ relative significance (Rani et al. 2020c). The SWARA tool
was suggested by Kersuliene et al. (2010) in order to compute the Step 1: Make the linguistic decision matrix (LDM).
subjective weights. Compared to different models, such as the ana-
lytic hierarchy process (AHP), the computational procedures in
A set of ‘ DEs A ¼ fA1 ; A2 ; :::; A‘ g determine the sets of m
SWARA are simpler; it offers a high degree of consistency and does
optionsM ¼ fM1 ; M2 ; :::; Mm g and n criteria F ¼ ff1 ; f2 ; :::; fn g: Consider-
not require many pairwise comparisons. Additionally, in comparison
ing the imprecision of human opinions and lack of information
with BWM (best worst method), the SWARA does not require the
related to the options; the DEs assign linguistic values (LVs) to assess
solution of complex linear objective functions, has less complex ðkÞ
computational operations, and could be easily understood. In a recent his/her judgment on option Mi over attribute fj. Let ZðkÞ ¼ ðξ ij Þm n;
study, Mishra et al. (2020) gave the SWARA with complex propor- ðkÞ
i ¼ 1; 2; :::; m; j ¼ 1; 2; :::; n be the LDM by DEs, where ξ ij shows the
tional assessment (COPRAS) for the evaluation of the bioenergy pro- of an option Mi over attribute fj given by kth expert.
duction procedures with IFSs. The intricate challenges of the present
world have directed researchers toward developing many MCDM Step 2: Find the weight of DEs.
approaches. For instance, Wu and Liao (2019) introduced the gained
and lost dominance score (GLDS) method for the solution of the
MCDM problems. The GLDS can be employed to choose the alterna- To obtain the DEs’ weight, the assessment of DEs are offered in
tive(s) of the highest desirability by computing the dominance flow term of LVs and then defined in PFNs. To find the kth DE weight, let Ak
between any two options considering the criteria. The best alterna- ¼ ðbk ; nk Þ be the PFN; the expression is given by
tive is obtained with a higher gained dominance score and a lower
!!
2 2 b2k
lost dominance score. In the study of Liao et al. (2019), a life satisfac- bk þ pk
b2 þ n2k
tion evaluation model was developed by means of the PL-GLDS inte- $k ¼ k ; k ¼ 1ð1Þ‘: ð3Þ
‘ b2
grated method to be applied to an earthquake-hit area. Therefore,
P 2 2 k
bk þ pk
b2 þ n2
k¼1 k k
GLDS has been proved effective in solving real-world MCDM prob-
lems. Here, $k 0 and ¼ 1‘ $k ¼ 1:
P
In another study, Keshavarz-Ghorabaee et al. (2021) proposed a k
novel objective weighting model, called the method with the Step 3: Create the aggregated PF-decision matrix (A-PF-DM).
5
0 0 11
The A-PF-DM is created using the PF-weighted averaging (PFWA) 1 X
operator and get Z ¼ ðξ ij Þm n; where Sij0 ¼ ln@1 þ @ lnðhik Þ AA: ð8Þ
n k;k6¼j

ξ ij ¼ bij ; nij ¼ PFWA$ ξ ð1Þ ð2Þ ð‘Þ

ij ; ξ ij ; . . . ; ξ ij
Step 4e: Calculate the summation of absolute deviations.
0v ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
‘ ‘
u
u Y
2
$ k Y $
¼@ 1t 1 bk ; ðnk Þ A: k
ð4Þ
k¼ 1 k¼1 Let Vj stands the summation of absolute deviations for the effect of
the jth criterion removal. Then, Vj can be computed by Eq. (9):
Step 4: Proposed PF-subjective and objective weighting approach
X
n
Vj ¼ Sij0 Si : ð9Þ
T
Let w ¼ ðw1 ; w2 ; :::; wn Þ be the weight of the attribute set with
P
i
j¼1
wj ¼ 1 and wj 2 ½0; 1. Then, the process for determining the attribute
weight is discussed as
Step 4f: Find the objective weight of the attribute.
Case I: Determination of objective weights by the method of PF-
MEREC
In this step, the objective weight ðwjo Þ of the attribute is obtained
using the removal effects ðVj Þ of step 4e as follows:
To find the criteria weights, the MEREC (Rani et al., 2021; Mishra
et al., 2022) is applied to PFSs. In the following, the procedure of the Vj
wjo ¼ n
: ð10Þ
PF-MEREC is presented by P
Vj
j¼1
Step 4a: Normalize the A-PF-DM.
Case II: Determine the subjective weights by the PF-SWARA method
In this step, a simple linear normalization is used to scale the ele-
ments of the A-PF-DM Z ¼ ðξ ij Þm n and generate the normalized A- Step 4g: Make an estimation of the score values. The score value Sðξ kj
Þ of PFNs is calculated using Eq. (1). After that; we prioritize the
PF-DM R ¼ ðyij Þm n: If f shows the benefit-type criteria set and f
b n attributes in accordance with the score values provided by DEs
represents the cost-type criteria set, then we utilize the following from the largest to smallest ratings.
equation for normalization: Step 4h: Evaluate the average value’s comparative significance. The
importance degree is estimated with the second-placed attribute,
(
ξ ij ¼ bij ; nij ; j 2 fb ;
yij ¼ bij ; nij ¼ c ð5Þ and the following comparative importance is utilized in making a
ξ ij ¼ nij ; bij ; j 2 fn :
comparison between attributes fj and fj 1 :
Step 4b: Find the score matrix. Step 4i: Find the comparative significance kj using Eq. (11):
1; j¼1
kj ¼ ð11Þ
With the use of the following formula (Rani et al., 2020c), the s j þ 1; j > 1;
score matrix V ¼ ðhij Þm n of each PFN & ij is calculated: where s j symbolizes the comparative significance.
1 2 2

hij ¼ bij nij þ 1 : ð6Þ Step 4j: Estimate the attribute weight. The expression of determining
2 the weight ðrj Þ as follows:
< 1; j¼1
8
Step 4c: Compute the alternatives’ overall performance.
rj ¼ rj 1 ; j > 1: ð12Þ
:
kj
This step involves the use of a logarithmic measure with equal cri- Step 4k: Obtain the subjective. The weight ðwjs Þ of attribute are deter-
teria weights for the computation of the overall performance of the mined as
alternatives (Keshavarz-Ghorabaee et al., 2021). Based on the nor-
malized values achieved in step 4b, the smaller values of hij could be
rj
wjs ¼ Pq : ð13Þ
ensured to obtain greater performance values. To compute these val- j¼1 rj
ues, Eq. (7) is employed: Case III: Computation of combined weight using the PF-MEREC-
SWARA model.
0 0 11
1 X AA
Si ¼ ln 1 þ
@ @ ln hij : ð7Þ
n j
The DE wants to employ the subjective and objective assessment
of attribute weights. To do so, the expression for integrating weight
is discussed as
Step 4d: Compute the alternatives’ performance through the removal
wj ¼ g wjo þ ð1 g Þwjs ð14Þ
of each criterion.
where g 2 ½0; 1 is a strategic parameter.
This step makes use of the logarithmic measure in a way similar to
the preceding step. The difference with step 4c is that the alterna- Step 5: Construct the dominance flows
tives’ performance is computed based on the removal of each crite-
rion separately. As a result, there will be n sets of performance Let yij ¼ ðbij ; nij Þ and yvj ¼ ðbvj ; nvj Þ be two PFNs for two alterna-
accompanied with n criteria. Let Si0 stand for the ith alternative’ over- tives Mi and Mv under the criterion fj, respectively.
all performance in regard to removing the jth criterion. To calculate The dominance flow of the alternative Mi and Mv with respect to
the values required for this step, Eq. (8) is employed: the criterion fj is defined as
6
this study, we have conducted a survey using the current literature

8 review and experts’ opinions to evaluate the most important risks for

< S yij S yvj ; if S yij S yvj
DFj ðMi ; Mv Þ ¼ ð15Þ digital economy transformation in the manufacturing industry. To do
: 0; if S yij < S yvj so, a comprehensive search has been done in the literature review to
find the important risks to send the related experts. To evaluate these
where Sðyij Þ is the score value for PFNs. risks, we have invited 15 experts from academia in the area of digital
The normalized dominance flow is obtained using vector normali- technologies, digital economy, manufacturing, and digital transfor-
zation as mation. In total, 21 risks are selected by experts on risks for digital
DFj ðMi ; Mv Þ economy transformation in the manufacturing industry. In the next
DFjN ðMi ; Mv Þ ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð16Þ stage, we designed these risks in a questionnaire format to send to
m P m
2
eight experts in the industry and academia sectors. After the research
P
DFj ðMi ; Mv Þ
v¼1 i¼1 framework was constructed, eight experts with the digital economy
and digital transformation experiences in the manufacturing industry
Step 6: Create the gained dominance score of each option
were chosen to participate in the study to evaluate the selected risks.
These eight experts were selected from manufacturing industries
located in the industrial park. All the selected industries have >200
The unicriterion gained dominance score (UGDS) of alternative Mi
employees, and the eight experts have >10 years of experience mak-
outranking all the other alternatives Mv ðv ¼ 1; 2; :::; m and v 6¼ iÞ
ing decisions on digital transformation. Among these experts’
over attribute fj is calculated by
answers, five questionnaires contained inconsistent answers. These
m
X questionnaires were returned to the respondents to be filled out
UGDSj ðMi Þ ¼ DFjN ðMi ; Mv Þ ð17Þ
v¼1
again, whereupon one expert refused to revise and correct their
responses due to their busy schedules. Consequently, this one expert
The overall gained dominance score (OGDS) of alternative Mi is answer was excluded from the analysis. Therefore, the result of this
computed as study is based on the responses of four experts.
m
X To analyze the results of the questionnaires, an integrated PF-
OGDSj ðMi Þ ¼ wj ¢ UGDSj ðMi Þ ð18Þ MEREC-SWARA-GLDS approach is presented in this study. In this
v¼1
approach, the PF-MEREC-SWARA is applied to compute the weight of
Then, a subordinate rank set r1 ¼ fr1 ðM1 Þ; r1 ðM2 Þ; :::; r1 ðMm Þg is risks for DET in the manufacturing industry, and the PF-GLDS model
obtained in descending order of the values of is implemented to find the prioritization of industries over different
OGDSj ðMi Þði ¼ 1; 2; :::; mÞ: risks for DET in the manufacturing industry. The implementation of
the PF-MEREC-SWARA-GLDS method is discussed as follows: Steps 1
Step 7: Construct the lost dominance score of each option −3: Table 1 portrays the LVs for assessing the ratings of the DEs and
risks and then converted into PFNs. Table 2 shows the DE’s weight
To depict the feature that alternative Mi does not always dominate using Table 1 and Eq. (3). Table 3 presents the LDM to evaluate the
Mv, the uni-criterion lost dominance score (ULDS) of option Mi is industries over different risks for DET in the manufacturing industry.
adopted using the maximizing operator as From Eq. (4) and Table 3, A-PF-DM Z ¼ ðξ ij Þm nis created and is
given in Table 4.
ULDSj ðMi Þ ¼ maxv DFjN ðMv ; Mi Þ ð19Þ
Step 4. Since all the criteria are of the same type, the normaliza-
Similarly, the overall lost dominance score (OLDS) of option Mi is tion of the A-PF-DM presented in Table 4 is not required. For
determined by

OLDSj ðMi Þ ¼ maxj wj ¢ DFjN ðMv ; Mi Þ ð20Þ
Table 1
Then, another subordinate rank set r2 ¼ fr2 ðM1 Þ; r2 ðM2 Þ; :::; r2 ð Performance ratings of option over criteria and
Mm Þg is obtained in ascending order of the values of OLDSj ðMi Þ DEs regarding the LVs.
ði ¼ 1; 2; :::; mÞ:
LVs PFNs
Step 8: Compute the collective score Absolutely good (AG) (0.95, 0.20, 0.240)
Very very good (VVG) (0.85, 0.30, 0.433)
Very good (VG) (0.80, 0.35, 0.487)
Normalizing the OGDS and OLDS of each option, we obtain Good (G) (0.70, 0.45, 0.554)
OGDSN ðMi Þ, and OLDSN ðMi Þ: The l rank r ¼ frðM1 Þ; rðM2 Þ; :::; rðMm Þg Moderate good (MG) (0.60, 0.55, 0.581)
is derived in descending order of CSi , where CSi indicates the collec- Moderate (M) (0.50, 0.60, 0.624)
tive score of alternative Mi: Moderate bad (MB) (0.40, 0.70, 0.592)
Bad (B) (0.30, 0.75, 0.589)
m r1 ðMi Þ þ 1 Very low (VB) (0.20, 0.85, 0.487)
CSi ¼ OGDSN ðMi Þ ¢ Absolutely bad (AB) (0.10, 0.95, 0.296)
ðmðm þ 1Þ=2Þ
r2 ðMi Þ
OLDSN ðMi Þ ¢ ; i ¼ 1ð1Þm: ð21Þ
ðmðm þ 1Þ=2Þ Table 2
Weight of DEs to the risk for DET in the manufacturing indus-
try.
Results and discussion
DEs LVs PFNs Score Weights
Case study A1 G (0.70, 0.45, 0.554) 0.7072 0.2084

A2 AG (0.95, 0.20, 0.240) 0.9577 0.2822
A3 VG (0.80, 0.35, 0.487) 0.8391 0.2473
In the digital economy, the Chinese manufacturing sector has
A4 VVG (0.85, 0.30, 0.433) 0.8892 0.2621
developed many best practices that have been applied worldwide. In
7
Table 3
The LDM by DEs to the risk for DET in the manufacturing industry.
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
f1 (M,MG,B,VB) (G,MG,MB,B) (G,G,M,M) (G,MG,M,G) (M,VG,VG,G) (M,G,B,M)

f2 (B,B,MB,M) (M,MB,VB,VB) (M,VG,M,MG) (B,M,MG,M) (B,G,MG,MB) (M,G,B,MB)
f3 (MG,G,VG,G) (B,G,G,VG) (B,MB,MB,G) (G,M,VG,MG) (G,VG,M,VG) (G,M,VB,M)
f4 (M,MB,MG,G) (B,VG,M,G) (B,MB,MB,MG) (G,MB,MG,M) (G,G,MB,VB) (M,B,B,G)
f5 (MG,M,MG,G) (M,MB,G,G) (G,MG,MB,M) (VB,MB,M,VG) (M,VVG,G,G) (B,M,VB,MG)
f6 (G,VG,MG,M) (MB,M,VB,MB) (M,VG,G,M) (VG,G,M,MG) (B,G,M,MB) (M,MG,M,B)
f7 (MG,MB,MG,B) (MG,B,MB,B) (B,MB,MG,M) (M,MG,M,MB) (M,G,VB,MB) (M,VB,M,MB)
f8 (M,G,VG,VG) (G,M,VVG,VG) (M,MB,M,MG) (B,M,MG,MB) (G,G,B,VB) (G,G,MB,VG)
f9 (MB,G,MG,G) (B,M,VG,G) (MG,M,MB,G) (M,MB,VG,MG) (B,VVG,G,M) (B,G,VG,M)
f10 (B,MB,VG,G) (MB,B,MG,G) (G,M,MG,MB) (G,MG,MB,MG) (G,VG,M,VB) (B,M,B,VB)
f11 (G,MB,MB, B) (B,MG,MB,B) (B,MG,VG,M) (VG,G,M,MG) (G,MG,G,M) (M,M,B,VB)
f12 (G,MB,B,MB) (M,MB,MG,MB) (MG,G,VG,M) (M,VG,M,MG) (M,G,M,MG) (G,MG,B,VB)
f13 (G,MG,M,G) (G,M,MG,G) (G,M,MG,MB) (B,MG,MB,M) (B,G,M,VB) (VG,G,B,B)
f14 (MB,M,M,G) (B,M,MG,MG) (G,MB,VG,MG) (VB,VG,MG,M) (B,VVG,G,M) (MB,M,VG,VB)
f15 (B,VG,MG,M) (B,B,VVG,G) (M,M,MB,VVG) (B,B,VG,MG) (G,G,M,M) (M,G,MG,M)
f16 (MG,MB,B,B) (MB,M,MB,VB) (G,MG,MG,VG) (MB,M,VG,G) (M,M,MB,B) (MG,M,VB,MG)
f17 (B,MB,MB,M) (MG,B,B,MB) (VB,MG,MB,M) (M,MB,M,MG) (M,G,M,VB) (VB,VG,MG,VB)
f18 (B,MG,VG,G) (G,MG,VG,G) (VB,M,VB,MB) (M,VB,MB,MB) (G,VVG,G,B) (M,MB,B,M)
f19 (M,MB,M,G) (M,MG,VVG,G) (VG,MB,MG,M) (G,MG,MG,MB) (M,B,VB,M) (G,MG,MB,VB)
f20 (B,MG,M,G) (G,M,M,MG) (M,MB,VB,M) (VB,VB,M,MB) (G,G,B,VB) (M,VG,MG,B)
f21 (G,M,MB,G) (B,M,M,MB) (VVG,M,B,MB) (B,VB,MB,MG) (B,G,M,VB) (MB,B,MG,G)
determining the weights of risks using PF-MEREC, the alterna- wjs ¼ (0.0482, 0.0493, 0.0470, 0.0451, 0.0426, 0.0494, 0.0510,
tives’ overall performance values are computed using Eq. (6), 0.0472, 0.0492, 0.0481, 0.0434, 0.0477, 0.0457, 0.0463, 0.0491,
and presented as S1 = 0.541, S2 = 0.565, S3 = 0.542, S4 = 0.549, 0.0476, 0.0508, 0.0485, 0.0479, 0.0501, 0.0458).
S5 = 0.517, and S6 = 0.596. Using Eq. (7), the alternatives’ over- From the algorithm of the proposed PF-MEREC-SWARA method,
all performancesðSij0 Þ is determined by removing each risk, the integrated weight using Eq. (14) for t ¼ 0:5 is given in Fig. 1 and
which is presented in Table 5. Afterward, the removal effect of presented as follows:
each risk upon the alternatives’ overall performance is calcu- wj = (0.0455, 0.0531, 0.0419, 0.0467, 0.0428, 0.0473, 0.0563,
lated on the basis of the deviation-based formula of Eq. (8). The 0.0436, 0.0431, 0.0482, 0.0467, 0.0478, 0.0456, 0.0438, 0.0438,
weight of each risk is obtained using Eq. (9), considering the 0.0507, 0.0542, 0.0497, 0.0476, 0.0520, 0.0497).
impact of their removal on the performance Vj of the alterna- Here, Fig. 1 discusses the weight values of different risks for DET
tives. By means of Eq. (10) and the Vj values, the weights of the in the manufacturing industry with respect to the goal. Lack of top
risks for DET in the manufacturing industry are calculated, management involvement (f7) with a weight of 0.0563, is the most
which are presented in Table 5 and Fig. 1. important risk for DET in the manufacturing industry. The unstable
market environment in terms of the uncertainty industry and market
volatility (f17) with a weight of 0.0542 is the second most important
From Eqs. (11)−(13), the subjective weights were computed using risk for DET in the manufacturing industry. Trust risk between part-
the PF-SWARA procedure of each most important risk for DET in the ners (f2) has third with a weight of 0.0531, lack of demand services
manufacturing industry using Tables 6−7. The resultant values are and high-quality digital industry (f20) has fourth with a weight of
presented in Fig. 1 and given as follows: 0.0520, Poor digital technology for integrating industry resources
Table 4
The A-PF-DM to evaluate the risk for DET in the manufacturing industry.
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
f1 (0.444, 0.678, 0.586) (0.533, 0.607, 0.589) (0.616, 0.521, 0.591) (0.675, 0.476, 0.563) (0.735, 0.418, 0.534) (0.543, 0.585, 0.603)
f2 (0.390, 0.695, 0.604) (0.349, 0.748, 0.564) (0.644, 0.504, 0.575) (0.499, 0.615, 0.610) (0.553, 0.591, 0.587) (0.523, 0.609, 0.597)
f3 (0.714, 0.441, 0.544) (0.689, 0.469, 0.553) (0.501, 0.632, 0.591) (0.668, 0.483, 0.566) (0.732, 0.421, 0.535) (0.514, 0.616, 0.597)
f4 (0.572, 0.569, 0.591) (0.653, 0.501, 0.568) (0.452, 0.667, 0.592) (0.559, 0.578, 0.594) (0.565, 0.593, 0.574) (0.499, 0.626, 0.599)
f5 (0.608, 0.535, 0.587) (0.603, 0.541, 0.586) (0.565, 0.573, 0.594) (0.572, 0.585, 0.575) (0.731, 0.426, 0.533) (0.451, 0.670, 0.590)
f6 (0.678, 0.475, 0.562) (0.399, 0.703, 0.589) (0.668, 0.480, 0.569) (0.668, 0.483, 0.566) (0.528, 0.603, 0.598) (0.496, 0.621, 0.608)
f7 (0.492, 0.639, 0.592) (0.413, 0.691, 0.593) (0.474, 0.643, 0.602) (0.511, 0.610, 0.606) (0.463, 0.664, 0.586) (0.393, 0.702, 0.594)
f8 (0.733, 0.420, 0.535) (0.744, 0.413, 0.525) (0.507, 0.613, 0.606) (0.476, 0.641, 0.603) (0.553, 0.603, 0.575) (0.688, 0.470, 0.553)
f9 (0.634, 0.519, 0.574) (0.641, 0.510, 0.573) (0.571, 0.568, 0.594) (0.617, 0.536, 0.576) (0.681, 0.481, 0.552) (0.645, 0.507, 0.572)
f10 (0.626, 0.533, 0.569) (0.543, 0.599, 0.588) (0.561, 0.576, 0.595) (0.589, 0.560, 0.583) (0.632, 0.532, 0.563) (0.355, 0.728, 0.587)
f11 (0.476, 0.650, 0.592) (0.438, 0.676, 0.593) (0.614, 0.537, 0.578) (0.668, 0.483, 0.566) (0.631, 0.514, 0.581) (0.401, 0.695, 0.597)
f12 (0.477, 0.649, 0.592) (0.483, 0.639, 0.599) (0.676, 0.475, 0.563) (0.644, 0.504, 0.575) (0.596, 0.541, 0.594) (0.444, 0.678, 0.586)
f13 (0.634, 0.511, 0.580) (0.631, 0.513, 0.582) (0.561, 0.576, 0.595) (0.482, 0.637, 0.602) (0.503, 0.635, 0.586) (0.602, 0.554, 0.575)
f14 (0.553, 0.575, 0.603) (0.529, 0.601, 0.599) (0.654, 0.505, 0.563) (0.619, 0.542, 0.568) (0.681, 0.481, 0.552) (0.563, 0.594, 0.575)
f15 (0.624, 0.528, 0.575) (0.646, 0.523, 0.556) (0.637, 0.520, 0.569) (0.618, 0.573, 0.539) (0.616, 0.521, 0.591) (0.594, 0.541, 0.595)
f16 (0.416, 0.690, 0.593) (0.397, 0.705, 0.588) (0.689, 0.469, 0.553) (0.649, 0.503, 0.571) (0.434, 0.661, 0.612) (0.510, 0.628, 0.588)
f17 (0.413, 0.682, 0.603) (0.415, 0.690, 0.593) (0.473, 0.654, 0.591) (0.507, 0.613, 0.606) (0.531, 0.606, 0.592) (0.584, 0.594, 0.553)
f18 (0.661, 0.498, 0.561) (0.708, 0.448, 0.546) (0.368, 0.732, 0.573) (0.385, 0.716, 0.582) (0.707, 0.459, 0.538) (0.433, 0.662, 0.611)
f19 (0.548, 0.581, 0.602) (0.702, 0.457, 0.546) (0.601, 0.548, 0.582) (0.587, 0.562, 0.583) (0.398, 0.696, 0.597) (0.519, 0.618, 0.590)
f20 (0.570, 0.569, 0.593) (0.580, 0.552, 0.599) (0.421, 0.683, 0.597) (0.358, 0.741, 0.568) (0.553, 0.603, 0.575) (0.619, 0.535, 0.575)
f21 (0.597, 0.544, 0.589) (0.442, 0.654, 0.613) (0.584, 0.571, 0.576) (0.417, 0.704, 0.574) (0.503, 0.635, 0.586) (0.543, 0.599, 0.588)
8
Table 5 Table 6
The implementation of the MEREC weighting approach for computing the criteria Significance of degree of risk for DET in the manufacturing industry.
weights.
Risks A1 A2 A3 A4 Aggregated PFNs Crisp values Sðξ~ kj Þ
ðS0ij Þ values
f1 M MG M M (0.532, 0.585, 0.612) 0.470
Risks M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 Vj wM
j f2 G M M M (0.555, 0.565, 0.611) 0.494
f3 MG M MG B (0.516, 0.611, 0.600) 0.446
f1 0.513 0.544 0.526 0.536 0.506 0.577 0.110 0.0427 f4 M MG B MB (0.474, 0.644, 0.600) 0.405
f2 0.510 0.530 0.527 0.526 0.495 0.575 0.146 0.0569 f5 MG B MB B (0.413, 0.691, 0.593) 0.347
f3 0.529 0.553 0.518 0.536 0.506 0.575 0.095 0.0369 f6 B M G MG (0.565, 0.572, 0.595) 0.496
f4 0.522 0.551 0.515 0.530 0.496 0.574 0.124 0.0482 f7 G MB M G (0.595, 0.547, 0.588) 0.527
f5 0.524 0.548 0.523 0.530 0.505 0.570 0.111 0.0430 f8 MG MG M B (0.520, 0.610, 0.599) 0.449
f6 0.528 0.535 0.528 0.536 0.494 0.574 0.116 0.0452 f9 G MB M MG (0.561, 0.577, 0.594) 0.491
f7 0.517 0.536 0.517 0.527 0.489 0.567 0.158 0.0615 f10 MB G M MB (0.539, 0.595, 0.596) 0.468
f8 0.530 0.555 0.519 0.525 0.495 0.584 0.103 0.0399 f11 M B VB MG (0.439, 0.681, 0.587) 0.364
f9 0.525 0.550 0.523 0.533 0.503 0.582 0.095 0.0370 f12 MG MB M MG (0.530, 0.602, 0.597) 0.460
f10 0.525 0.545 0.522 0.531 0.500 0.564 0.124 0.0483 f13 B G MB B (0.492, 0.638, 0.592) 0.417
f11 0.516 0.538 0.525 0.536 0.500 0.568 0.129 0.0501 f14 MB G B MB (0.506, 0.629, 0.591) 0.430
f12 0.516 0.541 0.529 0.534 0.499 0.570 0.123 0.0478 f15 M MG G B (0.561, 0.578, 0.593) 0.490
f13 0.525 0.550 0.522 0.525 0.492 0.579 0.117 0.0455 f16 MB MB G M (0.528, 0.603, 0.598) 0.458
f14 0.521 0.544 0.527 0.533 0.503 0.577 0.106 0.0413 f17 G MB G M (0.592, 0.550, 0.589) 0.524
f15 0.525 0.550 0.527 0.532 0.500 0.580 0.099 0.0385 f18 G B M MG (0.547, 0.588, 0.596) 0.476
f16 0.511 0.535 0.529 0.535 0.488 0.574 0.138 0.0538 f19 MB M MB G (0.535, 0.597, 0.598) 0.465
f17 0.512 0.536 0.516 0.527 0.494 0.578 0.148 0.0576 f20 MG MG M MG (0.578, 0.562, 0.591) 0.509
f18 0.527 0.554 0.508 0.517 0.504 0.570 0.131 0.0509 f21 M M MB M (0.478, 0.623, 0.619) 0.420
f19 0.521 0.553 0.525 0.531 0.485 0.575 0.122 0.0473
f20 0.522 0.547 0.513 0.515 0.495 0.580 0.139 0.0539
f21 0.523 0.539 0.523 0.519 0.492 0.576 0.138 0.0536
Sensitivity analysis
(f16) with a weight of 0.0507 has the fifth most important risk for DET
in the manufacturing industry and others are considered crucial risks In this subsection, a sensitivity investigation is made on parame-
for DET in the manufacturing industry. ter g : The g variation helps to assess the approach’s sensitivity
degree, which changes from objective weighting to subjective
Step 5: By using the score function Eq. (15)−Eq. (16), the A-PF-DM is weighting procedures. Moreover, variation of g values is used for the
transformed into the score matrix given in Table 8. assessment of the sensitivity of the presented model to the distinc-
tion of attribute weights.
Table 12 and Fig. 2 exemplify the sensitivity investigation of the
options for diverse utility values of parameter g : According to the
Steps 6−7: Based on the score-matrix, the OGDS (si) is calculated evaluations performed, we achieve the prioritization of industries for
by Eqs. (17)-(18), while the OLDS (si) is computed by Eqs. (19)-(20), the most important risk for digital economy transformation in the
which are given in Table 9 and Table 10, respectively. manufacturing industry as M5 \succM3 \succM4 \succM6 \succM2
\succM1 when g ¼ 0:0 using the PF-SWARA weighting procedure,
Step 8: By Eq. (21), the collective scores of the alternatives are derived M5 \succM1 \succM3 \succM4 \succM2 \succM6 when g ¼ 0:5 using the
and depicted in Table 11. Therefore, M5 \succM1 \succM3 \succM4 integrated PF-MEREC-SWARA weighting procedure and M5 \succM3
\succM2 \succM6 : That is to say, the industry-V (M5) is the best \succM1 \succM2 \succM6 \succM4 when g ¼ 1:0 using the PF-MEREC
choice to assess the risks for DET in the manufacturing industry. weighting procedure, which implies M5 is at the top of the ranking
for each value of g ; while the e6 has the last rank for g ¼ 0:0 to g ¼
Table 7
The weight of different risks for DET in the manufacturing industry
using the SWARA method.
Risks Crisp degrees sj kj rj wsj
f7 0.527 − 1.000 1.000 0.0510

f17 0.524 0.003 1.003 0.9970 0.0508
f20 0.509 0.015 1.015 0.9823 0.0501
f6 0.496 0.013 1.013 0.9697 0.0494
f2 0.494 0.002 1.002 0.9678 0.0493
f9 0.491 0.003 1.003 0.9649 0.0492
f15 0.490 0.001 1.001 0.9639 0.0491
f18 0.476 0.014 1.014 0.9506 0.0485
f1 0.470 0.006 1.006 0.9449 0.0482
f10 0.468 0.002 1.002 0.9430 0.0481
f19 0.465 0.003 1.003 0.9402 0.0479
f12 0.460 0.005 1.005 0.9355 0.0477
f16 0.458 0.002 1.002 0.9336 0.0476
f8 0.449 0.009 1.009 0.9253 0.0472
f3 0.446 0.003 1.003 0.9225 0.0470
f14 0.430 0.016 1.016 0.9080 0.0463
f21 0.420 0.010 1.010 0.8990 0.0458
f13 0.417 0.003 1.003 0.8963 0.0457
f4 0.405 0.012 1.012 0.8857 0.0451
f11 0.364 0.041 1.041 0.8508 0.0434
f5 0.347 0.017 1.017 0.8366 0.0426
Fig. 1. Weight values of different risks for DET in the manufacturing industry.
9
Table 8 Table 10
Score-matrix of the A-PF-DM. The ULDSs of each option.
Risks M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 Risks M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
f1 0.369 0.458 0.554 0.615 0.683 0.476 f1 0.000 0.142 0.296 0.393 0.502 0.172
f2 0.334 0.281 0.581 0.435 0.479 0.451 f2 0.091 0.000 0.511 0.263 0.337 0.290
f3 0.657 0.628 0.425 0.606 0.679 0.442 f3 0.383 0.333 0.000 0.298 0.418 0.028
f4 0.502 0.588 0.380 0.490 0.484 0.428 f4 0.315 0.538 0.000 0.284 0.268 0.125
f5 0.542 0.535 0.496 0.493 0.676 0.378 f5 0.310 0.298 0.223 0.217 0.564 0.000
f6 0.617 0.332 0.608 0.606 0.457 0.430 f6 0.436 0.000 0.422 0.420 0.191 0.150
f7 0.417 0.347 0.406 0.445 0.387 0.331 f7 0.364 0.067 0.317 0.480 0.235 0.000
f8 0.680 0.691 0.441 0.408 0.471 0.626 f8 0.390 0.406 0.047 0.000 0.090 0.313
f9 0.566 0.576 0.502 0.547 0.616 0.579 f9 0.309 0.354 0.000 0.215 0.548 0.372
f10 0.554 0.468 0.491 0.517 0.559 0.298 f10 0.485 0.322 0.366 0.415 0.494 0.000
f11 0.402 0.368 0.545 0.606 0.567 0.339 f11 0.100 0.046 0.327 0.425 0.363 0.000
f12 0.403 0.413 0.616 0.581 0.531 0.369 f12 0.060 0.077 0.434 0.373 0.286 0.000
f13 0.570 0.568 0.491 0.413 0.425 0.528 f13 0.418 0.411 0.208 0.000 0.031 0.306
f14 0.488 0.459 0.587 0.544 0.616 0.482 f14 0.083 0.000 0.369 0.246 0.454 0.066
f15 0.555 0.572 0.568 0.527 0.554 0.530 f15 0.277 0.438 0.398 0.000 0.264 0.032
f16 0.349 0.330 0.628 0.584 0.376 0.433 f16 0.027 0.000 0.430 0.367 0.066 0.149
f17 0.353 0.348 0.398 0.441 0.458 0.494 f17 0.016 0.000 0.155 0.289 0.340 0.453
f18 0.595 0.650 0.300 0.318 0.645 0.375 f18 0.323 0.384 0.000 0.020 0.377 0.082
f19 0.481 0.642 0.530 0.514 0.336 0.444 f19 0.261 0.552 0.350 0.321 0.000 0.194
f20 0.501 0.516 0.355 0.289 0.471 0.549 f20 0.379 0.406 0.118 0.000 0.325 0.465
f21 0.530 0.384 0.507 0.339 0.425 0.468 f21 0.276 0.064 0.243 0.000 0.124 0.186
1:0: As a result, it can be observed that the presented model is ade-

quately stable with many parameter values. Furthermore, as Table 12 Table 11
demonstrates, the developed PF-MEREC-SWARA-GLDS method can The collective scores of the industry to assess the risks for DET in the manufacturing
industry.
produce preference results of both stability and flexibility with differ-
ent utility parameters. This characteristic is highly significant for the OGDS r1 OGDSN OLDS r2 OLDSN CSi Final Ranking
MCDM procedures and decision-making reality.
M1 0.5150 4 0.3849 0.0234 1 0.3754 0.0165 2
M2 0.5122 5 0.3828 0.0263 4 0.4213 0.0438 5
M3 0.5954 2 0.4450 0.0271 6 0.4350 0.0183 3
Comparison with extant models M4 0.5429 3 0.4057 0.0270 5 0.4334 0.0259 4
M5 0.7074 1 0.5287 0.0241 2 0.3868 0.1142 1
In the current part of the study, we present a comparative study M6 0.3364 6 0.2514 0.0245 3 0.3936 0.0443 6
between the proposed and existing PF-COPRAS model (Alipour et al.,
2021) and PF-WASPAS (Rani et al., 2020b) for solving MCDM prob-
which is the same as the “relative degree (RD)” of each option.
lems under PFSs context as follows:
Hence, we get RD1 = 0.5088, RD2 = 0.4984, RD3 = 0.5036,
RD4 = 0.5001, RD5 = 0.5297 and RD6 = 0.4578.
PF-COPRAS model
Step 6: Find the prioritization using the RDi of these manufacturing
industries as RD5 \succRD1 \succRD3 \succRD4 \succRD2 \succRD6 :
Steps 1−4: Same as the presented model
The ranking describes that the industry-V (M5) is the optimal one
Step 5: Since all attributes are of benefit-type; thus, we find the among the others.
RDi
assessment rating of each option as bi ¼ nj¼1 wj &ij ; i ¼ 1; 2; :::; m; Step 7: Estimate the “utility degree (UD)” ui ¼ RD max
100 %: We
obtain u1 ¼ 96:05%; u2 ¼ 94:09%; u3 ¼ 95:07%; u4 ¼ 94:41% u5 ¼
100:00%; and u5 ¼ 86:43%:
Table 9
The UGDSs of each option.
Risks M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
f1 0.000 0.142 0.575 0.964 1.508 0.202 By comparing with the PF-COPRAS method, the final ranking of
f2 0.091 0.000 1.573 0.436 0.746 0.517 the manufacturing industries is M5 \succM1 \succM3 \succM4 \succM2
f3 0.871 0.674 0.000 0.568 1.049 0.028
f4 0.583 1.698 0.000 0.458 0.411 0.125
\succM6 : and the best manufacturing industry is M5 for the different
f5 0.501 0.454 0.228 0.217 1.773 0.000 risks for DET in the manufacturing industry.
f6 0.996 0.000 0.927 0.919 0.233 0.150
f7 0.837 0.067 0.648 1.419 0.404 0.000
f8 1.111 1.191 0.047 0.000 0.133 0.802 Table 12
f9 0.404 0.537 0.000 0.215 1.488 0.609 Results of the PF-MEREC-SWARA-GLDS with diverse values of g .
f10 0.838 0.322 0.410 0.555 0.880 0.000
f11 0.155 0.046 0.835 1.290 0.980 0.000 g M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 Ranking order
f12 0.060 0.093 1.376 1.069 0.720 0.000
f13 1.132 1.099 0.385 0.000 0.031 0.678 0.0 0.0539 0.0470 0.0258 0.0185 0.0272 0.0173 M5 \succM3 \succM4
f14 0.101 0.000 1.080 0.590 1.505 0.066 \succM6 \succM2
f15 0.534 1.217 1.020 0.000 0.496 0.032 \succM1
f16 0.027 0.000 1.540 1.225 0.105 0.353 0.5 0.0165 0.0438 0.0183 0.0259 0.1142 0.0443 M5 \succM1 \succM3
f17 0.016 0.000 0.295 0.694 0.898 1.466 \succM4 \succM2
f18 0.866 1.116 0.000 0.020 1.086 0.144 \succM6
f19 0.328 1.632 0.623 0.509 0.000 0.194 1.0 0.0142 0.0409 0.0011 0.0512 0.1136 0.0452 M5 \succM3 \succM1
f20 0.695 0.800 0.118 0.000 0.533 1.097 \succM2 \succM6
f21 0.762 0.064 0.597 0.000 0.183 0.371 \succM4
10
Fig. 3. Representation of UDs of each industry with various methods.

Fig. 2. Sensitivity outcomes of the CSi values over the utility parameter g .
& In the developed method, the subjective weights of risks are

PF-WASPAS model obtained by the PF-SWARA tool, and the objective weights of risks
are computed by PF-MEREC, whereas in PF-WASPAS, only objec-
The PF-WASPAS method is used for the purpose of handling the tive weights of risks are achieved with entropy and divergence
aforesaid MCDM problem as follows: measure-based weighting procedure, and in PF-COPRAS, the
Steps 1−4: As the aforementioned model weights are obtained with the SWARA model.
ð1Þ
& The PF-MEREC-SWARA-GLDS method introduced in this study is
Step 5: Find the weighted sum model (WSM) Ci and weighted prod- capable of providing a more precise elucidation under uncertain
ð2Þ
uct model (WPM) Ci degrees of each option as settings. This capacity is due to the computation of the criteria
ð1Þ n and DEs’ weights and their application to the processes of the
Ci ¼ wj ξ ij ; ð22Þ
j¼1 developed framework. In addition, two dominance scores-based
procedures as vital concepts in the presented framework lead the
ð2Þ n wj computational outcomes to a reliable one.
Ci ¼ ξ ij : ð23Þ
j¼1
Step 6: Obtain the UD of each option in the expression as

Conclusion
ð1Þ
Ci ¼ λ Ci þ ð1 λÞ Cð2Þ
i ; ð24Þ
The increase in the data flows paved the way for the transition
where λ 2 ½0; 1 shows the decision strategy coefficient.
into a new level of economic processes management that, in turn,
helps to analyze the economic activities of companies more accu-
Step 7: According to the UD Ci ; rank the options.
rately. New databases help users to forecast the economic processes
in companies. New smartphones, together with the internet, aid
users in creating digital models of consumers and technological pro-
From Eq. (22)-Eq. (23), the values of both models are estimated. cesses, which results in resource savings. The increase in the utiliza-
Then, the UD of each industry for the evaluation of the most impor- tion of digital devices has caused ‘big data’ to emerge. As noted
tant risk for DET in the manufacturing industry is estimated using Eq. earlier, the foundation of the digital economy is to work with these
(24) and presented in Table 13. data. The digital economy makes the stage ready for communicating
The prioritization of options is M5 \succ M3 \succ M1 \succ M4 \succ ideas and experiences. Digital technologies have significant roles in
M2 \succ M6 : Thus, the industry-V (M5) option is the best one for eval- training and knowledge sharing and also in implementing new ideas
uating the risks of digital economy transformation in the manufactur- in both professional and social environments. Accordingly, the sig-
ing industry. nificance of the digital economy to the success of companies must
As a whole, the benefits of the PF-MEREC-SWARA-GLDS method be highlighted and adequately supported. The literature needs to
over the extant method are given as follows (see Fig. 3): pay more attention to the problems related to risk analysis. The
Table 13
The UD of option to the evaluation of the risks for DET in the manufacturing industry.
Options WSM WPM UD ðCi Þ Ranking

ð1Þ ð1Þ ð2Þ ð2Þ
Ci SðCi Þ Ci SðCi Þ
M1 (0.577, 0.569, 0.587) 0.5046 (0.551, 0.586, 0.595) 0.4802 0.4924 3

M2 (0.568, 0.579, 0.584) 0.4935 (0.530, 0.604, 0.595) 0.4577 0.4756 5
M3 (0.575, 0.570, 0.587) 0.5027 (0.554, 0.585, 0.592) 0.4827 0.4927 2
M4 (0.572, 0.576, 0.585) 0.4976 (0.548, 0.592, 0.591) 0.4747 0.4861 4
M5 (0.599, 0.554, 0.578) 0.5260 (0.574, 0.572, 0.586) 0.5013 0.5137 1
M6 (0.530, 0.609, 0.590) 0.4549 (0.511, 0.620, 0.596) 0.4385 0.4467 6
11
underestimation of the effects of risks upon the transformation pro- Declaration of Competing Interest
cess inhibits the formation of a mature digital economy. Some coun-
tries are cut off from global information communications. Such The authors have no competing interests to declare that are rele-
countries fail to switch to a digital type of functioning in their eco- vant to the content of this article.
nomic systems. Inequality has been reported to be one of the rea-
sons for the institutions’ poor functioning. As a result, the
technological and geopolitical conflicts among the leading countries Appendix
are one of the key risk indicators from the perspective of ensuring
national security issues directly related to technological risks. There- Table A1
fore, in this study, to analyze, prioritize and evaluate the main risks
for DET in the manufacturing industry, an integrated decision-mak-
References
ing method using the PF-MEREC-SWARA and the PF-GLDS models
called the PF-MEREC-SWARA-GLDS approach is introduced. To rank
Agarwal, R., Gao, G., DesRoches, C., & Jha, A. K. (2010). Research commentary: The digi-
the main risks for DET in the manufacturing industry, the PF- tal transformation of healthcare: Current status and the road ahead. Information
MEREC-SWARA is utilized, and to find the prioritization of different Systems Research, 21, 796–809.
industries for the evaluation of the risks for digital economy trans- Alipour, M., Hafezi, R., Rani, P., Hafezi, M., & Mardani, A. (2021). A new Pythagorean
fuzzy-based decision-making method through entropy measure for fuel cell and
formation in the manufacturing industry, the PF-GLDS method is hydrogen components supplier selection. Energy, 234, 121208. doi:10.1016/j.ener-
used. To elucidate the results of this study, sensitivity and compari- gy.2021.121208.
son assessments with the PF-COPRAS, PF-WSM, PF-WPM, and PF- Aşuroglu, T., Acıcı, K., Berke Erdaş, C., Kılınç Toprak, M., Erdem, H., & Ogul, H. (2018).
Parkinson’s disease monitoring from gait analysis via foot-worn sensors. Biocyber-
WASPAS methods are discussed. netics and Biomedical Engineering, 38, 760–772.
Ballestar, M. T., Camin ~ a, E., Díaz-Chao, A., & Torrent-Sellens, J. (2021). Productivity and
employment effects of digital complementarities. Journal of Innovation & Knowl-
edge, 6, 177–190.
Battisti, E., Shams, S. M. R., Sakka, G., & Miglietta, N. (2020). Big data and risk manage-
ment in business processes: Implications for corporate real estate. Business Process
Table A1
Management Journal, 26, 1141–1155.
Definition of abbreviations. Baykasog lu, A., & Go € lcu _ (2019). A dynamic multiple attribute decision making
€ k, I.
model with learning of fuzzy cognitive maps. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
Abbreviations Meaning
135, 1063–1076.
ICTs Information and communication technologies Beaumier, G., Kalomeni, K., Campbell-Verduyn, M., Lenglet, M., Natile, S.,
Papin, M., et al. (2020). Global regulations for a digital economy: Between new and
DTLs Digital technologies
old challenges. Global Policy, 11, 515–522.
IoT Internet of thing
Beller, C.S., Ramos, L.F.P., de Freitas Rocha Loures, E., Deschamps, F., (2019) The impor-
AI Artificial intelligence
tance of analysis cycles in defining criteria for selecting digital era projects, in:
DT Digital transformation Reis, J., Pinelas, S., Mela ~o, N. (Eds.), Industrial Engineering and Operations Manage-
RM Risk management ment I. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 271−283.
PFSs Pythagorean fuzzy sets Benedikter, R., Giordano, J., & Fitzgerald, K. (2010). The future of the self-image of the
MCDM Multi-criteria decision making human being in the age of transhumanism, neurotechnology and global transition.
STS Science and technology studies Futures, 42, 1102–1109.
IT Information technology Bienhaus, F., & Haddud, A. (2018). Procurement 4.0: Factors influencing the digitisation of
AHP Analytic hierarchy process procurement and supply chains. Business Process Management Journal, 24, 965–984.
PROMETHEE Preference ranking organization method for enrichment Bostrom, N. (2003). Human genetic enhancements: A transhumanist perspective. The
evaluation Journal of Value Inquiry, 37, 493–506.
IT2F Interval type-2 fuzzy Bril, A. R., Kalinina, O. V., Ilin, I. V., Dubgorn, A. S., & Iliashenko, O. Y. (2017). Forecasting
BWM best-worst method the turnover growth in the risk management system as management decisions
support. 2017 XX IEEE international conference on soft computing and measurements
AR Augmented reality
(SCM) (pp. 692−693).
IFSs Intuitionistic fuzzy sets
Bruskin, S.N., Brezhneva, A.N., Dyakonova, L.P., Kitova, O.V., Savinova, V.M., Danko, T.P.
BD Belongingness degree et al. (2017) Business performance management models based on the digital cor-
ND Non-belongingness degree poration’s paradigm.
DEs Decision experts Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and pros-
TOPSIS Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal perity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & Company.
solution Bukht, R., Heeks, R. (2017) Defining, conceptualising and measuring the digital econ-
SRP Sustainable recycling partner omy. Development Informatics working paper.
WASPAS Weighted aggregated sum and product assessment Casey, E., Ribaux, O., & Roux, C. (2018). Digital transformations and the viability of
ARAS Additive ratio assessment forensic science laboratories: Crisis-opportunity through decentralisation. Forensic
SWARA Step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis Science International, 289, e24–e25.
HCW healthcare waste Chen, H., & Tian, Z. (2022). Environmental uncertainty, resource orchestration and digital
MWTMs Medical-waste treatment methods transformation: A fuzzy-set QCA approach. Journal of Business Research, 139, 184–193.
Cozzens, S. E. (1989). The social construction of technological systems: New directions
CoCoSo Combined compromise solution
in the sociology and history of technology, Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, Tre-
COPRAS Complex proportional assessment
vor Pinch. Technology and Culture, 30, 705–707.
GLDS Gained and lost dominance score
da Cunha, R. A., Rangel, L. A. D., Rudolf, C. A., & dos Santos, L. (2022). A decision support
MEREC Method with the removal effects of criteria approach employing the PROMETHEE method and risk factors for critical supply
FFSs Fermatean fuzzy sets assessment in large-scale projects. Operations Research Perspectives, 9, 100238.
RS Rank sum Demirkan, H., Spohrer, J. C., & Welser, J. J. (2016). Digital Innovation and Strategic
DNMA Double normalization-based multiple aggregation Transformation. IT Professional, 18, 14–18.
DET digital economy transformation de Bem Machado, A., Secinaro, S., Calandra, D., & Lanzalonga, F. (2022). Knowledge
LDM linguistic decision matrix management and digital transformation for Industry 4.0: a structured literature
LVs linguistic values review. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20, 320–338.
A-PF-DM Aggregated PF-decision matrix Deepa, N., Prabadevi, B., & Srivastava, G. (2021). Integrated ranking algorithm for effi-
PFWA PF-weighted averaging cient decision making. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision
UGDS Unicriterion gained dominance score Making, 20(02), 597–618.
Ding, C., Liu, C., Zheng, C., & Li, F. (2022). Digital economy, technological innovation and
OGDS Overall gained dominance score
high-quality economic development: Based on spatial effect and mediation effect.
ULDS Unicriterion lost dominance score
Sustainability, 14, 216.
WSM Weighted sum model
Dominici, P. (2018). For an inclusive innovation. Healing the fracture between the
WPM Weighted product model human and the technological in the hypercomplex society. European Journal of
Futures Research, 6, 3.
Ebert, C., & Duarte, C. H. C. (2018). Digital transformation. IEEE Software, 35, 16–21.
12
Eckhart, M., Brenner, B., Ekelhart, A., & Weippl, E. (2019). Quantitative security risk Masuda, Y., Shirasaka, S., Yamamoto, S., & Hardjono, T. (2017). Risk management for digi-
assessment for industrial control systems: Research opportunities and challenges. tal transformation in architecture board: A case study on global enterprise. 2017 6th
Journal of Internet Services and Information Security, 9, 52–73. IIAI international congress on advanced applied informatics (IIAI-AAI) (pp. 255−262).
Elezaj, O., Tole, D., & Baci, N. (2018). Big data in e-government environments: Albania Mayer-Scho € nberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform
as a case study. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 7, 117–124. how we live, work, and think. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Engler, E., (2020) Lack of skills threatens digital transformation. Gartner, available at: McNamee, M. J., & Edwards, S. D. (2006). Transhumanism, medical technology and slip-
Https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/lack-of pery slopes. Journal of medical ethics, 32, 513–518.
Fern andez-Carame s, T. M., & Fraga-Lamas, P. (2018). Towards the internet of smart Menzefricke, J. S., Wiederkehr, I., Koldewey, C., & Dumitrescu, R. (2021). Socio-technical
clothing: A review on IoT wearables and garments for creating intelligent con- risk management in the age of digital transformation -identification and analysis of
nected E-textiles. Electronics, 7, 405. existing approaches. Procedia CIRP, 100, 708–713.
Filatova, O., Golubev, V., & Stetsko, E. (2018). Digital transformation in the Eurasian eco- Mishra, A. R., Rani, P., Cavallaro, F., & Mardani, A. (2022). A similarity measure-based
nomic union: Prospects and challenges. (pp. 90−101). Cham: Springer International Pythagorean fuzzy additive ratio assessment approach and its application to
Publishing. multi-criteria sustainable biomass crop selection. Applied Soft Computing, 125,
Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., & Welch, M. (2014). Embracing digital tech- 109201. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109201.
nology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55, 1. Mishra, A. R., Rani, P., Pandey, K., Mardani, A., Streimikis, J., Streimikiene, D., &
Fritzsche, K., Niehoff, S., & Beier, G. (2018). Industry 4.0 and climate change—exploring Alrasheedi, M. (2020). Novel multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy SWARA−COPRAS
the science-policy gap. Sustainability, 10, 4511. approach for sustainability evaluation of the bioenergy production process. Sus-
Gale, M., & Aarons, C. (2018). Digital transformation. Leader to Leader, 2018, 30–36. tainability, 12(10).
Hezam, I. M., Mishra, A. R., Rani, P., Cavallaro, F., Saha, A., Ali, J., et al. (2022). A hybrid intui- Mishra, A. R., Saha, A., Rani, P., Hezam, I. M., Shrivastava, R., & Smarandache, F. (2022).
tionistic fuzzy-MEREC-RS-DNMA method for assessing the alternative fuel vehicles An integrated decision support framework using single-valued-MEREC-MULTI-
with sustainability perspectives. Sustainability, 14, 5463. doi:10.3390/su14095463. MOORA for low carbon tourism strategy assessment. IEEE Access : Practical Innova-
Ho€ flinger, P. J., Nagel, C., & Sandner, P. (2018). Reputation for technological innovation: tions, Open Solutions, 10, 24411–24432. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3155171 2022.
Does it actually cohere with innovative activity? Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, Mitra, A., & O’Regan, N. (2020). Creative leadership within the cyber asset market: An
3, 26–39. interview with dame Inga Beale. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29, 51–58.
Horlacher, A., Klarner, P., & Hess, T. (2016). Crossing boundaries: Organization design Nguyen Duc, A., & Chirumamilla, A. (2019). Identifying security risks of digital transfor-
parameters surrounding CDOs and their digital transformation activities. AMCIS mation - an engineering perspective. (pp. 677−688). Cham: Springer International
2016: Surfing the IT innovation wave - 22nd Americas conference on information sys- Publishing.
tems. Ogie, R. I., Rho, J. C., & Clarke, R. J. (2018). Artificial intelligence in disaster risk commu-
Horoshko, O.-I., Horoshko, A., Bilyuga, S., & Horoshko, V. (2021). Theoretical and meth- nication: A systematic literature review. 2018 5th international conference on infor-
odological bases of the study of the impact of digital economy on World policy in mation and communication technologies for disaster management (ICT-DM) (pp. 1
21 century. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, 120640. −8).
Huxley, J. (1968). Transhumanism. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 8, 73–76. Pan, W., Xie, T., Wang, Z., & Ma, L. (2022). Digital economy: An innovation driver for
Jayakrishnan, M., Mohamad, A. K., & Abdullah, A. (2018). Digitalization approach total factor productivity. Journal of Business Research, 139, 303–311.
through an enterprise architecture for Malaysia transportation industry. Interna- Petrie, K. J., & Wessely, S. (2002). Modern worries, new technology, and medicine. BMJ
tional Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9, 834–839. (Clinical research ed.), 324, 690–691.
Jones, S. R. (2019). Managing process safety in the age of digital transformation. Chemi- Piccinini, E., Hanelt, A., Gregory, R. W., & Kolbe, L. M. (2015). Transforming industrial
cal Engineering Transactions, 77, 619–624. business: The impact of digital transformation on automotive organizations. ICIS.
Karhu, K., & Ritala, P. (2021). Slicing the cake without baking it: Opportunistic platform Popkova, E. G., & Sergi, B. S. (2020). Digital economy: Complexity and variety vs. rational-
entry strategies in digital markets. Long Range Planning, 54, 101988. ity, digital economy: Complexity and variety vs. rationality. (pp. 1−1055). Cham:
Kersuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolu- Springer.
tion method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis Prabadevi, B., Deepa, N., Ganesan, K., & Srivastava, G. (2022). A decision model for rank-
(SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11, 243–258. ing Asian higher education institutes using an NLP-based text analysis approach.
Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J. Transactions on Asian and low-resource language information processing.
(2021), “Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the doi:10.1145/3534562.
removal effects of criteria (MEREC)”, Symmetry, Vol. 13, pp. 01−20 (https://doi. Prasad, A. (2021). Anti-science misinformation and conspiracies: COVID−19, post-
org/10.3390/sym13040525). truth, and science & technology studies (STS). Science, Technology and Society, 27,
Kijek, T., & Kijek, A. (2019). Is innovation the key to solving the productivity paradox? 88–112.
Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4, 219–225. Ramos, L., Loures, E., Deschamps, F., & Vena ^ncio, A. (2020). Systems evaluation method-
Kozlov, A., Gutman, S., Rytova, E., & Zaychenko, I. (2017). Human and economic factors ology to attend the digital projects requirements for industry 4.0. International
of long-distance commuting technology: Analysis of arctic practices. Ed., Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 33, 398–410.
In R. H. M. Goossens (Ed.), Advances in social & occupational ergonomics Ed.. Rani, P., Mishra, A. R., Saha, A., & Pamucar, D. (2021). Pythagorean fuzzy weighted dis-
(pp. 409−420). Cham: Springer International Publishing. crimination-based approximation approach to the assessment of sustainable bio-
Kraus, S., Durst, S., Ferreira, J. J., Veiga, P., Kailer, N., & Weinmann, A. (2022). Digi- energy technologies for agricultural residues. International Journal of Intelligent
tal transformation in business and management research: An overview of the Systems, 36(6), 2964–2990. doi:10.1002/int.22408.
current status quo. International Journal of Information Management, 63, Rani, P., Mishra, A. R., Krishankumar, R., Ravichandran, K. S., & Gandomi, A. H. (2022). A
102466. new Pythagorean fuzzy based decision framework for assessing healthcare waste
Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. Penguin. treatment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 2915–2929.
Lanz, R., & Maurer, A. (2015). Services and global value chains: Some evidence on servicifi- doi:10.1109/TEM.2020.3023707.
cation of manufacturing and services networks. (p. 125). Geneve: World Trade Orga- Rani, P., Mishra, A. R., & Pardasani, K. R. (2020). A novel WASPAS approach for multi-
nization. Economic Research and Statistics Division WTO Staff Working Papers criteria physician selection problem with intuitionistic fuzzy type-2 sets. Soft Com-
ERSD-2015-03. puting, 24, 2355–2367.
Li, F. (2020). Leading digital transformation: Three emerging approaches for managing the Rani, P., Mishra, A. R., Pardasani, K. R., Mardani, A., Liao, H., & Streimikiene, D. (2019). A
transition. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40, 809–817. novel VIKOR approach based on entropy and divergence measures of Pythagorean
Li, Y., Yang, X., Ran, Q., Wu, H., Irfan, M., & Ahmad, M. (2021). Energy structure, digital fuzzy sets to evaluate renewable energy technologies in India. Journal of Cleaner
economy, and carbon emissions: Evidence from China. Environmental Science and Production, 238. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117936.
Pollution Research, 28, 64606–64629. Rani, P., Mishra, A. R., Rezaei, G., Liao, H., & Mardani, A. (2020). Extended pythagorean
Litvinenko, V. S. (2020). Digital economy as a factor in the technological development fuzzy TOPSIS method based on similarity measure for sustainable recycling partner
of the mineral sector. Natural Resources Research, 29, 1521–1541. selection. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 22, 735–747.
Liao, H. C., Yu, J. Y., Wu, X. L., Al-Barakati, A., Altalhi, A., & Herrera, F. (2019). Life satis- Rani, P., Mishra, A. R., Saha, A., Hezam, I. M., & Pamucar, D. (2022). Fermatean fuzzy
faction evaluation in earthquake-hit area by the probabilistic linguistic GLDS Heronian mean operators and MEREC-based additive ratio assessment method:
method integrated with the logarithm-multiplicative analytic hierarchy process. An application to food waste treatment technology selection. International Journal
The International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 38, 101190. of Intelligent Systems, 37, 2612–2647.
Liu, P., Rani, P., & Mishra, A. R. (2021). A novel pythagorean fuzzy combined compro- Ren, K., Wang, C., & Wang, Q. (2012). Security challenges for the public cloud. IEEE
mise solution framework for the assessment of medical waste treatment technol- Internet Computing, 16, 69–73.
ogy. Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126047. Ricciardi, W., Pita Barros, P., Bourek, A., Brouwer, W., Kelsey, T.,
Liu, C. (2022). Risk prediction of digital transformation of manufacturing supply chain Lehtonen, L., et al. (2019). How to govern the digital transformation of health serv-
based on principal component analysis and backpropagation artificial neural net- ices. European Journal of Public Health, 29, 7–12.
work. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 61, 775–784. Romero, D., Flores, M., Herrera, M., & Resendez, H. (2019). Five management pillars for
Liu, Y., Peng, Y., Wang, B., Yao, S., & Liu, Z. (2017). Review on cyber-physical systems. digital transformation integrating the lean thinking philosophy. 2019 IEEE interna-
IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 4, 27–40. tional conference on engineering, technology and innovation (ICE/ITMC) (pp. 1−8).
Ma, Q., Mentel, G., Zhao, X., Salahodjaev, R., & Kuldasheva, Z. (2022). Natural resources Schiffer, M., Luckert, M., Wiendahl, H.-H., & Saretz, B. (2018). Smart supply chain −
tax volatility and economic performance: Evaluating the role of digital economy. development of the equipment supplier in global value networks. IFIP international
Resources Policy, 75, 102510. conference on advances in production management systems (APMS) (pp. 176−183).
Majchrzak, A., Markus, M.L., Wareham, J. (2016) Designing for digital transformation Seoul, South Korea: Springer International Publishing.
Markides, C., & Sosa, L. (2013). Pioneering and first mover advantages: The importance Silberg, J., & Manyika, J. (2019). Notes from the AI frontier: Tackling bias in AI (and in
of business models. Long Range Planning, 46, 325–334. humans). (pp. 1−6). McKinsey Global Institute.
13
Silvast, A., & Virtanen, M. J. (2021). On theory−methods packages in science and tech- Yang, Z., Chang, J., Huang, L., & Mardani, A. (2021). Digital transformation solutions of
nology studies. Science, Technology, & Human Values 01622439211040241. entrepreneurial SMEs based on an information error-driven T-spherical fuzzy
Singh, S., Sharma, M., & Dhir, S. (2021). Modeling the effects of digital transformation in cloud algorithm. International Journal of Information Management 102384.
Indian manufacturing industry. Technology in Society, 67, 101763. Yoo, S.-K., & Kim, B.-Y. (2018). A decision-making model for adopting a cloud comput-
Skare, M., & Riberio Soriano, D. (2021). How globalization is changing digital technol- ing system. Sustainability, 10, 2952.
ogy adoption: An international perspective. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6, Young, A., & Rogers, P. (2019). A review of digital transformation in mining. Mining,
222–233. Metallurgy & Exploration, 36, 683–699.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Zhang, X., & Xu, Z. (2014). Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making
Fabian, N., et al. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and with pythagorean fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 29(12),
research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. 1061–1078.
Wu, X., & Liao, H. (2019). A consensus-based probabilistic linguistic gained and lost dom- Zhou, Y., Tang, Z., Qian, X., & Mardani, A. (2021). Digital manufacturing and urban
inance score method. The European Journal of Operational Research, 272, 1017–1027. conservation based on the Internet of Things and 5G technology in the con-
Yager, R. R. (2014). Pythagorean membership grades in multi-criteria decision making. text of economic growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170,
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 22(4), 958–965. 120906.
14

S2444569X23000896

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S2444569X23000896

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S2444569X23000896

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8 (2023) 100393

A decision support model for evaluating risks in the digital economy

this study, we have conducted a survey using the current literature

Case study A1 G (0.70, 0.45, 0.554) 0.7072 0.2084

f1 (M,MG,B,VB) (G,MG,MB,B) (G,G,M,M) (G,MG,M,G) (M,VG,VG,G) (M,G,B,M)

Risks Crisp degrees sj kj rj wsj

f7 0.527 − 1.000 1.000 0.0510

1:0: As a result, it can be observed that the presented model is ade-

Fig. 3. Representation of UDs of each industry with various methods.

& In the developed method, the subjective weights of risks are

Step 6: Obtain the UD of each option in the expression as

Options WSM WPM UD ðCi Þ Ranking

M1 (0.577, 0.569, 0.587) 0.5046 (0.551, 0.586, 0.595) 0.4802 0.4924 3

You might also like