SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Artif. Intell.
Sec. AI in Business
Volume 8 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/frai.2025.1605756
This article is part of the Research TopicSoft Computing and Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Decision Making, Management and EngineeringView all articles
A Systematic Literature Review on the use of Multicriteria Decision Making Methods for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Innovation Assessment
Provisionally accepted- 1Department of Industrial Engineering and Manufacturing, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, Ciudad Juárez, Mexico
- 2Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile., Concepción, Chile
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods are essential tools for assessing multiple factors in various contexts, including innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In this study, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted based on a literature search in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, covering the period 2018-2024, taking as a basis the general guidelines and main phases of an SLR, in addition, The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was used, which allowed the selection of 25 relevant articles. From the analysis, four main trends in innovation assessment were identified: Innovation Capacity and Business Strategies, Open Innovation, Evaluation and Management, Technological and Digital Innovation, and Green Innovation and Sustainability. The results indicate that India and China are the countries with the highest volume of publications on this topic, while the business and academic sectors are the most studied, followed by the social sector. In addition, other key factors assessed in SMEs using MCDM methods were identified, grouped into five main themes including industry 4.0 and digital transformation, sustainability and green manufacturing, risk management and business resilience, decision making in trade and markets, and business management strategies and technology selection, broken down into 11 specific approaches. The review shows that assessing innovation in SMEs requires a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach tailored to business needs. It also shows a preference for fuzzy tools and the combination of different MCDM methods. This article provides an updated diagnosis on the use of multiple criteria in the innovation assessment in SMEs, providing a basis for future research and applications in this field.
Keywords: Systematic Literature Review, Multicriteria decision making methods, Small and medium-sized enterprises, innovation, Prisma method
Received: 03 Apr 2025; Accepted: 23 Jun 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO, Pérez-Domínguez, Romero-Lopez, Luviano-Cruz and Leon-Castro. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
MAYRA LETICIA RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO, Department of Industrial Engineering and Manufacturing, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, Ciudad Juárez, Mexico
Luis Pérez-Domínguez, Department of Industrial Engineering and Manufacturing, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, Ciudad Juárez, Mexico
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.