Evaluation of the innovation level in the EU countries in 2016 and 2011

Purpose – The main aim of this paper is to evaluate the innovation level in the European Union countries, but in a different way than it was adopted in the European Union reports (European Innovation Scoreboard, and earlier Innovation Union Scoreboard). Analyses were performed in relation to INPUTS-OUTPUTS. Research method – Two methods of multi-criteria analysis were used in the calculations. The first is the popular method known as Simple Additive Weighting. The second is the method known as Processing Technique of Ratings for Ranking of Alternatives, which was developed by the author of this article. Results – The obtained results of the innovation level were analyzed. Analysis concerned two periods: 2016 and 2011 and determined aggregate ratings, which characterized the innovation level of particular European Union countries. Four classes of the innovation level were defined: innovation leaders, good innovators, week innovators and innovation outsiders. Then, based on the calculated global ratings, European Union countries have been assigned to the appropriate classes. The results of this analysis were compared with the classification of the EU Member States in terms of the innovation level that IUS / EIS reports contain. Analyses in relation to INPUTS-OUTPUTS have also made it possible to assess the usefulness of indicators from the IUS / EIS reports to measure the innovation level in such a way. Originality /value / implications /recommendations – The analysis of the innovation level was carried out using two multi-criteria analysis [email protected] of Economics and Finance, University of BialystokBehzadian M., Kazemzadeh R.B., Albadvi A., Aghdasi M., 2010, PROMETHEE: A comprehesive literature review on methodologies and applications, “European Journal of Operational Research”, vol. 200(1), pp. 198-215.Dunning D.J., Ross Q.E., Merkhofer M.W., 2000, Multiattribute utility analysis for addressing Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, “Environmental Science and Policy”, vol. 3, pp. 7-14, DOI: 10.1016/S1462-9011(00)00022-8.EIS, 2016, European Innovation Scoreboard 2016, Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology – MERIT, http://ec.europa.eu/ DocsRoom/ documents/ 17822 [date of entry: 22.11.2017].Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R., 2005, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.Figueira J., Salvatore G., Ehrgott M., 2005, Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.Hall B.H., Rosenberg N., 2010a, Handbook of innovation, vol. 1, Elsevier – North Holland, Amsterdam.Hall B.H., Rosenberg N., 2010b, Handbook of innovation, vol. 2, Elsevier – North Holland, Amsterdam.IUS, 2011, Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards/index_en.htm [date of entry: 22.11.2017].IUS, 2013, Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-data-bases/eip-raw-materials/en/system/files/ged/69%20Innovation %20Union%20Scoreboard% 202013_en.pdf [data of entry: 22.11.2017].IUS, 2014, Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014, https://publications. europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d1cb48d3-4861-41fe-a26d-09850d32487b/langu-age-en/format-PDF [date of entry: 22.11.2017].IUS, 2015, Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015, https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b00c3803-a940-11e5-b528-01aa75ed71a1/lan-guage-en/format-PDF [date of entry: 22.11.2017].Kobryń A., Prystrom J., 2018, Processing technique of ratings for ranking of alternatives (PROTERRA), “Expert Systems”, vol. 35(4), pp. 1-14, DOI: 10.1111/exsy.12279.Silverberg G., Soete L., 1994, The Economics of Growth and Technical Change, E. Elgar, Brookfield.Tofallis C., 2014, Add or multiply? A tutorial on ranking and choosing with multiple criteria, “INFORMS Transactions on Education”, vol. 14(3), pp. 109-142, DOI: 10.1287/ited.2013.0124.www 1, http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation [date of entry: 22.11.2017].4(102)10912

Selección de la mejor alternativa en proyectos de infraestructuras de aparcamientos con criterios en conflicto de diferentes grupos de interés

The paper analyses multicriteria decision making methods as tool that enable both public and private developers and designers to determine the most appropriate alternative(s) in cases where there is uncertainty and economic, social, sustainable and functional criteria in conflict. For this, the paper analyses how the successive application of these methods may help to determine the best solution in parking infrastructure projects and to minimize the subjectivity of the decision makers. The significant criteria in the decision process, and the possible alternatives in terms of locations and typology are analyzed. For the analysis to be complete, all the stakeholders involved in the project must be included, including users because its importance. The proposed methodology covers all this features and includes user perception (user’s utility value) expressed in economic terms, criterion had not been incluided in previous research regarding the selection of alternatives for parking projects.El artículo analiza los métodos de decisión multicriterio como herramienta que permite a promotores, públicos o privados, y proyectistas determinar la(s) alternativa(s) más adecuadas en condiciones de incertidumbre y con criterios económicos, sociales, de sostenibilidad y funcionales en conflicto. La aplicación de estos métodos de manera secuencial puede ayudar a determinar la mejor solución y a minimizar la subjetividad del decisor. Se analizan los criterios determinantes en el proceso de decisión y diferentes ubicaciones y tipologías como alternativas. Para que el análisis sea completo, se deben incluir todas las partes interesadas participantes en el proyecto, incluyendo, por su importancia, a los usuarios. La metodología propuesta reúne estas características e incluye como criterio, la percepción del usuario (el valor de utilidad para el usuario), expresado en términos económicos, no incluido en investigaciones previas de selección de alternativas en aparcamientos