Two-stage multi-objective technology portfolio planning under resource constraints (case study: Iranian technology development fund)

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Department of STI Financing and Economics, National Research Institution for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran.

2 Mosaheb Institute of Mathematics

Abstract

This study proposes a novel two-stage multi-objective framework for optimal technology portfolio planning and resource allocation under constraints, specifically for Technology Development Funds (TDFs). The integrated methodology combines the Analytic Network Process (ANP) for prioritizing strategic technology fields with a multi-period Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model, solved using a Revised Multi-Choice Goal Programming (RMCGP) approach. The model’s objectives are to maximize technological export potential, maximize international technological cooperation, and minimize financial risk, while incorporating critical real-world mechanisms such as staged financing contingent on Technology Readiness Level (TRL) progress, loan moratorium, and repayment periods.
The framework was validated through a real-world case study of an Iranian Technology Development Fund (ITDF), involving eight technology fields and up to 30 projects per field. Key quantitative results demonstrate the model’s efficacy: by reducing the risk objective’s weight from 0.3 to 0.1, the number of approved projects increased over fivefold (from 12 to 65), and the total allocated resources surged nearly tenfold (from $22.2 million to $217.5 million). Sensitivity analysis revealed that fields with high export potential and collaboration capacity (e.g., Advanced Machinery) received the highest funding, while the staged financing mechanism successfully identified and terminated 25% of projects for insufficient technical progress after the first stage. The proposed model provides a robust decision-support tool for policymakers to enhance the strategic impact and financial efficiency of national technology investments.

Keywords

Main Subjects


[1] D.C. Alvarado, S. Acha, N. Shah, C.N. Markides, A technology Selection and Operation (TSO)
optimisation model for distributed energy systems: Mathematical formulation and case study, Appl.
Energy 180 (2016) 491-503.
[2] A. Belz, J. Eckhause, R.J. Terrile, F. Zapatero, A real options methodology for multi-stage project
selection: an application to NASA’s SBIR program, Annals Oper. Res. (2025)
[3] C.T. Chang, Revised multi-choice goal programming, Appl. Math. Model. 32(12) (2008)
2587–2595.
[4] A.Charnes, W.W. Cooper, Management models and industrial applications of linear programming,
Manag. Sci. 4 (1957) 38-91.
[5] H.Davoudpour, S. Rezaee, M.Ashrafi, Developing aframework for renewable technology portfolio
selection: A case study at a R&Dcenter,, Renew. Sustainable. Energy Rev. 16(6) (2012) 4291-4297.
[6] M.W. Dickinson, A.C. Thornton, S. Graves, Technology portfolio management: optimizing inter
dependent projects over multiple time periods, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 48 (2001) 518-527.
[7] R. Etgar, Y. Cohen, Roadmap optimization: multi-annual project portfolio selection method, Math
ematics 10(9) (2022) 1601.
[8] S.S. Ghazinoori, S.S. Ghazinoori, An Introduction to Science, Technology and Innovation Policy
making, Tehran, 2nd Edition, Tarbiat Modares University (In Persian) (2014).
[9] F. Hassanzadeh, H. Nemati, M. Sun, Robust optimization for interactive multi-objective program
ming with imprecise information applied to R&D project portfolio selection, Eur. J. Oper. Res.
238(1) (2014) 41-53.
[10] M. Jafarzadeh, H.R. Tareghian, F. Rahbarnia, R. Ghanbari , Optimal selection of project portfolios
using reinvestment strategy within a flexible time horizon, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 243(2) (2015) 658-664.
[11] M. Kahn, M. de Melo Luiz, M.G.P. de Matos, Financing Innovation, India, Routledge (2017).
[12] E. Karasakal, P. Aker, A multicriteria sorting approach based on data envelopment analysis for
R&Dproject selection problem. Omega. 73 (2017) 79-92.
[13] O. Kocadagli, R. Keskin, A novel portfolio selection model based on fuzzy goal programming with
different importance and priorities, Expert Syst. Appl. 42(20) (2015) 6898-6912.
[14] F. Kucukbay, C. Araz, Portfolio selection problem: a comparison of fuzzy goal programming and
linear physical programming, Int. J. Optim. Control Theor. Appl. 6(2) (2016) 121-128.
[15] J.C. Mankins, Technology readiness and risk assessments: A new approach, Acta Astronautica. 65
(2009) 1208-1215.
[16] H. Markowitz, Portfolio selection, J. Finance 7(1) (1952) 77–91.
[17] Z. Mashayekhi, H. Omrani, An integrated multi-objective Markowitz–DEA cross-efficiency model
with fuzzy returns for portfolio selection problem , Appl. Soft Comput. 38 (2016) 1-9.
[18] B. Qiu, Y. Dou, Z. Chen, Optimizing multi-stage project portfolio selection considering integrating
lifecycle and interactions, Systems 12(10) (2016) 414.
[19] A.M. Ramedani, A. Mehrabian, H. Didehkhani, A two-stage sustainable uncertain multi-objective
portfolio selection and scheduling considering conflicting criteria, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 132(2)
(2024) 107942
[20] W. Saaty Rozann, Decision Making In Complex Environments; The Analytic Network Process
(ANP) for Dependence and Feedback, Creative Devices. Found. (2016).
[21] L.T. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning Setting Priorities, Resource Allocation, New
York: McGraw-Hill International (1980).
[22] A.F. Sattari, Technology portfolio modeling in hybrid environment, Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 5(11) (2011)
7420-7427.
[23] M. Shaverdi, S. Yaghoubi, A technology portfolio optimization model considering staged financing
and moratorium period under uncertainty, RAIRO Oper. Res. 55 (2021) S1487-S1513.
[24] M. Tavana, M. Keramatpour, F.J. Santos-Arteaga, E. Ghorbaniane, A Fuzzy hybrid project portfolio
selection method using data envelopment analysis, TOPSIS and integer programming, Expert Syst.
Appl. 42(22) (2015) 8432-8444.
[25] M. Tavana, K. Khalili-Damghani, S. Sadi-Nezhad, A fuzzy group data envelopment analysis model
for high-technology project selection: A case study at NASA, Comput. Ind. Eng. 66(1) (2013) 10-23.
[26] R.J. Terrile, J. Byron, A.P. Belz, Consideration of risk and reward in balancing technology portfo
lios, 2014 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 1-8 March, Big Sky, MT, USA.
[27] J. Wonglimpiyarat, Technology Financing and Commercialization; Exploring the Challenges and
HowNations Can Build Innovative Capacity, UK, Palgrave Macmillan (2015).
[28] J. Wonglimpiyarat, Entrepreneurial financing for venture and innovation development, Int. J. Fore
sight Innov. Policy 5(4) (2009) 234–243.
[29] J. Wonglimpiyarat, Government programmes in financing innovations: Comparative innovation
system cases of Malaysia and Thailand, Technol. Soc. 33(1) (2011) 156-164.
[30] S. YuOliver, Technology Portfolio Planning and Management; Practical Concepts and Tools, USA,
Springer (2006)