A hybrid fuzzy real option analysis and group ordinal approach for knowledge management strategy assessment
The intensity of global competition and ever-increasing economic uncertainties has led organizations to search for more efficient and effective ways to improve organizational productivity by investing in knowledge management (KM) initiatives. In this research, we propose a framework to assess KM investment opportunities. Precise and crisp information is fundamentally indispensable in strategic investment assessment. However, the information concerning future investment opportunities in the real world is often imprecise or ambiguous. Initially, fuzzy real option valuation is used to estimate the value of the KM strategies. Next, a multi-criteria decision-making model is proposed to determine the optimal KM strategy in deferral time. Then, a group ordinal approach is used to capture and quantify the underlying uncertainties in the valuating process. Finally, the optimal KM strategy and the best time to implement this strategy is determined by a novel objective decision-making model. The contribution of this paper is fourfold: (1) it addresses the gaps in KM literature on the effective and efficient assessment of KM investment opportunities; (2) it provides a comprehensive and systematic framework that combines real option analysis with a group ordinal approach to assess KM investment strategies; (3) it considers fuzzy logic and fuzzy sets to represent ambiguous, uncertain or imprecise information; and (4) it uses a real-world case study to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed framework and exhibit the efficacy of the procedures and algorithms.
Zandi, Faramak and Tavana, Madjid, "A hybrid fuzzy real option analysis and group ordinal approach for knowledge management strategy assessment" (2017). Business Systems and Analytics Faculty Work. 286.
Zandi, F. and Tavana, M. (2010) ‘A Hybrid Fuzzy Real Option Analysis and Group Ordinal Approach for Knowledge Management Strategy Assessment,’ Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 216–228.