We present and compare two original approaches for technology assessment and foresight based on opposite paradigm: a management science approach (Multi-Criteria Decision-Making) versus a participatory approach (Prediction Market). These approaches are intended to support the management of a technology portfolio and the assessment of new technology by an IT organization. In order to explore the relevance of the research, we conducted several experiments in real environments. The results demonstrated that the rigor of management science and the participation of the Web 2.0 approach are complementary strengths for technology foresight. Furthermore, a framework has been established to compare the two approaches.

1. 13th AIM Conference 2008 - Paris
Comparison of Multicriteria and
Prediction Market Approaches for
Technology Foresight
Cédric Gaspoz, Faculty of Business and Economics

2. Introduction
One of the critical issues in IT management is to
“situate the challenges facing the IT
managers regarding emerging
technology…”.
McKeen and Smith (2003)
This requires companies to adopt a systematic
process to stay up-to-date and assess new
technology for a potential integration into
modern organizations.
17th June 2008
2 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

3. How to choose the best approach?
We propose to establish a comparison framework based
on characteristics derived from past research previously
presented (MCDM and PM).
– Presentation of the Approaches
– Design of the Artifacts
– Settings of the Experiments
– Analysis of the Results
This framework aims at helping us to compare our two
approaches and identify their key success factors.
– Comparison of the Methods
– Conclusions
– Future Work
17th June 2008
3 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

4. Presentation of the Approaches
MCDM PM
A Management Science An Emerging Approach
Approach
• uses either quantitative or • aggregates automatically
qualitative criteria the information
simultaneously and disseminated among all
concurrently actors in a corporate crowd
• determines the solution • determines the consensual
approaching the “optimal” equilibrium price of the
in regards of several underlying solution
criteria or among existing
solutions 17th June 2008
4 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

5. Design of the Artifacts
MCDM PM
A Group Decision e-Trading Market
Support System
PylaDESS MarMix
17th June 2008
5 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

6. Settings of the Experiments
MCDM PM
Visiting Swiss Experts Gathering the Crowd
Selected Experts Who Master Students (crowd)
Individual interviews with One group meeting to
each company followed by start the market and some
a roundtable for all the Where trading activities. Later,
experts to meet and the participants continue to
discuss the results. trade alone anytime.
6 month When 1 month
Several month for setup, Few days for setup and
How
interviews and analysis analysis
17th June 2008
6 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

7. Analysis of the Results
MCDM PM
Ranking and Outranking Price of Contracts
1. SmartCard 1. NFC
2. NFC 2. SmartCard
3. Contactless Card 3. Contactless Card
4. Magnetic Card 4. Phone proximity
5. Phone proximity 5. Phone remote
6. Phone remote 6. Magnetic Card 17th June 2008
7 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

8. Comparison of the Methods (1/5)
A Framework of Comparison
Organizational
Organizational
Factors Factors
Technology Data IN Data OUT
Forecasting
Method
Data Assessment
Attributes Properties Assessment
properties
17th June 2008
8 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

9. Comparison of the Methods (2/5)
Organizational factors
MCDM PM
• organizations with formal • organizations with
and less participatory participatory and informal
decision-making processes decision-making style
• relies mainly on relevant • community of players
experts driven by the game and its
financial profits
• experts need a good • does not require in depth
knowledge of the method knowledge of the method
17th June 2008
9 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

10. Comparison of the Methods (3/5)
Assessment Properties
MCDM PM
• gives a posteriori results • longitudinal studies for
to support the resolution assessments requiring
of a decision problem frequent or permanent
update
• detailed snapshots taken • movies shot over a
at certain times period of time
17th June 2008
10 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

11. Comparison of the Methods (4/5)
Data Attributes
MCDM PM
• Endogenous Data • Exogenous Data
Collection Collection
• External Validation • Internal Validation
Process Process
• Extended Outcome • Aggregated Outcome
17th June 2008
11 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

12. Comparison of the Methods (5/5)
Key Success Factors
• Experts vs Crowd
• Hired Facilitator vs Motivated Crowd
• Valid Data vs Validated Data
• Explicit Outcome vs Implicit Outcome
17th June 2008
12 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

13. Conclusions
MCDM approach brought PM provide a synthetic
an analytic explanation of aggregation of numerous
the phenomenon by a individual beliefs, constan-
controlled and criteria- tly adjusted and made
based evaluation available for everyone
The combined strengths of the MCDM
approach and prediction markets could be
exploited for technology assessment and
foresight to improve IT investment
decisions.
17th June 2008
13 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

14. Future Work
• Expand the framework to a tool to choose the right
Computer Aided Technology Foresight Tool based on
the forecasting context
• Use our framework with other forecasting methods
17th June 2008
14 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008

15. The research presented in this slideshow is available as a research paper
on the website of the author:
http://www.hec.unil.ch/cgaspoz/en/publications.html
Cédric Gaspoz
University of Lausanne
Faculty of Business and Economics
Information Systems Institute
CH-1015 Lausanne
cedric.gaspoz@unil.ch
Cédric Gaspoz's research focuses on information aggregation, primarily to support decision making. He explores
ways of aggregating disseminated information to structure it and increase it's significance. His research covers a
broad range of topics like prediction markets, group decision support systems (GDSS), negotiation support
systems (NSS), semantic search and Mashup. His actual focus is on using prediction markets to support portfolio
management of research projects in mobile information and communication systems.
17th June 2008
15 Cedric.Gaspoz@unil.ch | 13th AIM Conference 2008