Abstract :

The FMCG industry is known for its dynamic and competitive nature. To thrive in this business sector, companies must possess the ability to swiftly adapt to the market demand changes, continuously enhance operational efficiency and drive innovation. Those abilities are crucial for maintaining competitiveness and ensuring long term viability of the company. Over the past few decades, technology along with its advancement has emerged as a factor that disrupts the ecosystem of various industries by reshaping the way businesses operate and interact with the customers. In Indonesia, many organizations including FMCG companies have continuously embraced and adopted emerging and innovative technologies within their business operations. Although it offers various benefits for the companies, the execution process has usually encountered various challenges which causing the implementation projects to experiencing delays, especially during the decision-making process. This was also the case in one of the largest FMCG companies in Indonesia due to varying interpretations of project importance, as well as the absence of clear prioritization criteria and an unorganized decision-making process. In order to address the issues, the organization plans to develop a decision-making framework that harmonizes diverse stakeholder perspectives related to project importance based on a number of key criteria while also analyze the benefit and impact provided by the implemented technologies through the application of the Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) framework. There are three technology innovation projects to be analyzed and assessed in this research: AGV Implementation, and Digital Warehouse Management System, and Universal QR for Traceability. In order to evaluate the projects, eighteen criterion which are divided into eighteen sub criteria that has been established through Secondary Data Collection and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) process. The data were processed by leveraging the systematic decision-making structure provided by the AHP framework. The research yields two primary outcomes: a structured decision-making framework and a project prioritization scheme intended for application at the organization. The findings of the research highlight the critical role of structured decision-making in navigating the complexities of evaluating and prioritizing innovative technological projects, while also proposing a scalable model that can be repeatedly utilized by the company in the project evaluation and prioritization contexts.

---

Keywords :

analytical hierarchy process, Decision making, Emerging and Innovative Technologies, FMCG, Project Delays, Project Evaluation and Prioritization

---

References :

1. Olutimehin, D., Nwankwo, E., Ofodile, O., & Ugochukwu, C. (2024). Strategic operations management in FMCG: A comprehensive review of best practices and innovations. International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research, 6(3), 780-794. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijmer.v6i3.935.
2. George, A. S., & George, A. (2023). FMCG’s digital dilemma: The consequences of insufficient IT expertise in the fast-moving consumer goods industry. 01, 46-69. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8066759.
3. Akhmadi, S., & Tsakalerou, M. (2020). Obstacles to innovation – Is there a need for consensus?. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMSCON47658.2020.9140075.

4. Yordanova, Z. (2020). Innovative technologies and learning. Springer.
5. Abdulwase, R., Ahmed, F., Nasr, F., Al-yousofi, A., & Yan, S. (2020). The role of business strategy to create a competitive advantage in the organization. Open Access Journal of Science, 4(4), 135-138. https://doi.org/10.15406/oajs.2020.04.00162.

6. Kpurunee, G., Amadi, K., & Kpurunee, K. (2023). Competitive strategies and organizational performance of corporate enterprises in Nigeria. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation, 6(4), 149-162. https://doi.org/10.52589/IJEBI-BZI87J3S.
7. Haraisa, Y. E. Al. (2022). The Impact of Strategic Alignment and Strategic Awareness On Strategic Performance: Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting Finance and Management Sciences, 12(4), 42–55.
8. Ansari, R., Shakeri, E., & Raddadi, A. (2014). Framework for aligning project management with organizational strategies. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000249.
9. Project Management Institute. (2021). A Guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) (7th ed.).
10. Fokina, O., Ivanovskaya, Z., Mottaeva, A., & Khubaev, A. (2023). The conceptual role of leadership in project management. E3S Web of Conferences, 458. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202345804020.
11. Lester, A. (2017). Project Management, Planning and Control (7th ed.). Elsevier.
12. Adegbite, A., Adefemi, A., Ukpoju, E., Abatan, A., Adekoya, O., & Obaedo, B. (2023). Innovations in project management: Trends and best practices. Engineering Science & Technology Journal, 4(6), 509-532. https://doi.org/10.51594/estj.v4i6.670.

13. Kozarkiewicz, A. (2020). General and specific: The impact of digital transformation on project processes and management methods. Foundations of Management, 12(1), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.2478/fman-2020-0018.
14. Tabassi, A. A., Bryde, D. J., Kamal, E. M., Dowson, J., & Michaelides, R. (2019). Challenges for project management in the 21st century. The European Proceedings of Multidisciplinary Sciences. ISSN 2421-826X.
15. George, C. (2020). The use of project management skills to overcome organizational challenges. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 5(3). ISSN 2456-2165.
16. Hordieieva, I., Omelyanenko, V., Krysovatyy, I., Oprysok, M., & Kostin, I. (2024). Project management in complex technical infrastructure projects: Challenges and strategies. AD ALTA: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 14(1), 88-93. https://doi.org/10.33543/1401398893.
17. Zhu, X., Meng, X., & Zhang, M. (2021). Application of multiple criteria decision making methods in construction: A systematic literature review. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 27(5), 372-403. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2021.15260.

18. Danesh, D., Ryan, M., & Abbasi, A. (2017). A systematic comparison of multi-criteria decision making methods for the improvement of project portfolio management in complex organisations. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 16(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDM.2017.10005690.
19. Guarini, M., Battisti, F., & Chiovitti, A. (2018). A methodology for the selection of multi-criteria decision analysis methods in real estate and land management processes. Sustainability, 10(2), 507. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020507.
20. Taherdoost, H., & Madanchian, M. (2023). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and concepts. Encyclopedia, 3(1), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006.
21. Souza, D., Santos, E., Soma, N., & Silva, C. (2021). MCDM-based R&D project selection: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 13(21), 11626. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111626.
22. Liu, X., Shao, S., & Shao, S. (2024). Landslide susceptibility zonation using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in the Great Xi’an Region, China. Scientific Reports, 14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53630-y.
23. Abdullah, M., & Asmael, N. (2023). Analytic hierarchy process for evaluation of transportation alternatives on the Karkh side of Baghdad. Journal of Engineering and Sustainable Development, 27(6). https://doi.org/10.31272/jeasd.27.6.8.
24. Alyamani, R., & Long, S. (2020). The application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in sustainable project selection. Sustainability, 12(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208314.
25. Shanmugasundaram, S., & Raja Muthaiah, M. C. (2024). Selection of robot for contour crafting using analytical hierarchy process. Civil and Environmental Engineering Reports, 33(1), 123-150. https://doi.org/10.59440/ceer/177605.
26. Mazhar, S. A. (2021). Methods of data collection: A fundamental tool of research. Journal of Integrated Community Health, 10(1), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.24321/2319.9113.202101.
27. Syed, S., & Qadri, S. (2021). Data Collection Methods: Advanced Research Methodology. Department of Business Administration, Greenwich University, Pakistan Campus-Karachi.
28. Yayeh, F. A. (2021). Focus Group Discussion as a data collection tool in Economics. Daagu International Journal of Basic & Applied Research-DIJBAR, 3(1), 52-61.
29. Tümen Akyıldız, S., & Ahmed, K. (2021). An overview of qualitative research and focus group discussion. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 7(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.866762.
30. Taherdoost, H. (2020). Different types of data analysis; Data analysis methods and techniques in research projects. International Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM), 9(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5376/ijarm.2020.0901.0001. ISSN: 2296-1747.

31. Ivanova, N. (2023). Classification of basic methods for data analysis in industry. Annual of the University of Mining and Geology “St. Ivan Rilski”, Vol. 66/2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8335379.