Evaluation of Main Sources of Ideas for Innovation in Manufacturing Companies Using PROMETHEE Method

  • Nenad MedicEmail author
  • Zoran Anisic
  • Ugljesa Marjanovic
  • Nemanja Tasic
  • Bojan Lalic
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes on Multidisciplinary Industrial Engineering book series (LNMUINEN)


Innovation has been recognized and widely acknowledged as one of the main drivers of the knowledge society. In order to achieve sustainability and development companies get involved in different types of innovation (i.e. Closed innovation, Open innovation). Also, there are different areas of innovation that should be considered by companies (i.e. products, technologies, organization, services). This paper aims to evaluate different internal (i.e. Closed innovation) and external (i.e. Open innovation) sources of innovation ideas based on the importance of different innovation areas. For this purpose, data taken from European Manufacturing Survey are used. For evaluation of various innovation idea sources Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) was employed. Empirical results revealed that manufacturing companies are more oriented towards internal sources of innovation ideas. More specifically, CEO/management of a company represents the most important internal source of ideas for innovation, while customers represent the most important external source of ideas for innovation. Results presented in this paper could serve for strategic orientation of manufacturing companies that want to get involved in innovation activities.


Innovation Manufacturing MCDM 


  1. 1.
    Herzog, P.: Open and Closed Innovation: Different Cultures for Different Strategies. Springer, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N., Tierney, T.: What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Bus. Rev. 77(2), 106–116 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grant, R.M.: Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 17(S2), 109–122 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B.: Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Res. Policy 33(10), 1477–1492 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mathieu, V.: Service strategies within the manufacturing sector: benefits, costs and partnership. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 12(5), 451–475 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chesbrough, H.: Open innovation: where we’ve been and where we’re going. Res. Technol. Manag. 55(4), 20–27 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Santoro, G., Ferraris, A., Giacosa, E., Giovando, G.: How SMEs engage in open innovation: a survey. J. Knowl. Econ. 9(2), 561–574 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J.: Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    von Hippel, E.: The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sako, M.: The Handbook of Industrial Innovation: Supplier Relationships and Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bessant, J., Rush, H.: Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer. Res. Policy 24(1), 97–114 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lundvall, B.: National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Anthem Press, London (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leonard-Barton, D.: Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strateg. Manag. J. 13(1S), 111–125 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dosi, G.: Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Policy 11(3), 147–162 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Camisón, C., Villar-López, A.: Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. J. Bus. Res. 67(1), 2891–2902 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tukker, A., Tischner, U.: Product-services as a research field: past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. J. Clean. Prod. 14(17), 1552–1556 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI: European Manufacturing Survey. Accessed 25 June 2019
  18. 18.
    Lalic, B., Rakic, S., Marjanovic, U.: Use of Industry 4.0 and organisational innovation concepts in the Serbian textile and apparel industry. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 27(3), 10–18 (2019)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lalić, B., Medić, N., Delić, M., Tasić, N., Marjanović, U.: Open innovation in developing regions: an empirical analysis across manufacturing companies. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 8(3), 111–120 (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marjanovic, U., Lalic, B., Majstorovic, V., Medic, N., Prester, J., Palcic, I.: How to increase share of product-related services in revenue? Strategy towards servitization. In: Moon, I., Lee, G., Park, J., Kiritsis, D., von Cieminski, G. (eds.) Advances in Production Management Systems. Smart Manufacturing for Industry 4.0: APMS 2018. IFIP-AICT, vol. 536, pp. 57–64. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brans, J.P.: L’ingénièrie de la décision; Elaboration d’instruments d’aide à la décision. La méthode PROMETHEE. In: Nadeau, R., Landry, M. (eds.), L’aide à la décision: Nature, Instruments et Perspectives d’Avenir, pp. 183–213. Presses de l’Université Laval (1982)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R.B., Albadvi, A., Aghdasi, M.: PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 200(1), 198–215 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brans, J.P., Vincke, P.: A preference ranking organization method. Manag. Sci. 31(6), 647–656 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Technical SciencesUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia

Personalised recommendations