METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO EVALUATING INNOVATIVE PROJECTS IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

doi:10.26565/2524-2547-2025-69-11

Iryna Lytovchenko Semen Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics, 9-A, Nauky Avenue, Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8117-1244
Illia Kostin Semen Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics, 9-A, Nauky Avenue, Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5111-808X

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26565/2524-2547-2025-69-11

Keywords: Innovative Projects, Digital Transformation, Evaluation Methods, Artificial Intelligence, Multicriteria Analysis

Abstract

The paper examines the evolution of innovation evaluation methods, which is directly influenced by technological advancement and changes in the socio-economic environment. Initially, innovation activities were evaluated primarily from a financial perspective, using classic methods such as NPV, IRR, and Payback Period, focusing on economic feasibility but often neglecting the social and environmental impact. Modern approaches, however, are oriented towards a more holistic consideration of various factors, including intangible assets such as knowledge, ecological sustainability, and strategic significance.

Digitalization, according to the authors, requires the integration of new methods such as multi-criteria analysis, which accounts for economic, social, environmental, and technological factors, as well as the creation of hybrid models that combine traditional financial tools and innovative approaches. Specifically, real options and digital twins provide flexible evaluation and forecasting, considering potential changes in the market and technology. The paper also highlights the limitations of traditional evaluation methods like NPV and IRR in the context of high uncertainty, typical of innovative projects.

The study proposes a methodological approach for comprehensive evaluation of innovative projects based on the integration of financial, social, environmental, and technological factors, utilizing advanced digital technologies. Authors suggest a multi-step evaluation model, which includes multidisciplinary assessment of basic parameters, real options for evaluating strategic flexibility, and digital twins for real-time project implementation forecasting and optimization. These approaches allow for the consideration of dynamic market changes and provide more accurate and adaptive information for strategic decision-making.

An interesting aspect of the study is the application of artificial intelligence and digital twins, which significantly enhance the precision of project evaluations and increase their adaptability to external changes. Through case studies of innovative projects, particularly in logistics process management, the paper demonstrates how the proposed methods allow for a comprehensive evaluation, taking into account financial indicators, ecological sustainability, and technological innovation.

The results of the study highlight the necessity of integrated approaches to evaluating innovative projects, as digitalization and technological innovations dramatically transform the evaluation processes. These methods enable the creation of more adaptive and accurate models that account for a wide range of factors and can respond promptly to changes in the market environment, which is particularly crucial in the context of digital business transformation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Iryna Lytovchenko, Semen Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics, 9-A, Nauky Avenue, Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine

PhD (Economics), Associate Professor

Illia Kostin, Semen Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics, 9-A, Nauky Avenue, Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine

PhD Student

References

Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. (2015). From creativity to innovation: the social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 53–79. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0462

Sharapov, D., & MacAulay, S. C. (2020). Design as an Isolating Mechanism for Capturing Value from Innovation: From Cloaks and Traps to Sabotage. Academy of Management Review, 47(1), 139–161. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0413

Ciaffi, G., Deleidi, M., & Di Bucchianico, S. (2024). Stagnation despite ongoing innovation: Is R&D expenditure composition a missing link? An empirical analysis for the US (1948–2019). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 206, 123575. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123575

Van Elk, R., Ter Weel, B., Van Der Wiel, K., & Wouterse, B. (2019). Estimating the Returns to Public R&D Investments: Evidence from Production Function Models. De Economist, 167(1), 45–87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-019-09331-3

Chen, L., Tao, S., Xie, X., Huang, W., & Zhu, W. (2024). The evaluation of innovation efficiency and analysis of government subsidies influence – Evidence from China’s metaverse listed companies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 123213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123213

Lan, X., Li, Z., & Wang, Z. (2022). An investigation of the innovation efficacy of Chinese photovoltaic enterprises employing three-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA). Energy Reports, 8, 456–465. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.05.093

Li, H., He, H., Shan, J., & Cai, J. (2018). Innovation efficiency of semiconductor industry in China: A new framework based on generalized three-stage DEA analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 66, 136–148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2018.07.007

Wang, Q., & Ren, S. (2022). Evaluation of green technology innovation efficiency in a regional context: A dynamic network slacks-based measuring approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182, 121836. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121836

Hameed, T., Alemayehu, F. K., & Kumbhakar, S. C. (2024). Green innovation in Norwegian firms: Navigating the complexity of productivity and performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 209, 123786. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123786

Mokyr, J. (2018). The past and the future of innovation: Some lessons from economic history. Explorations in Economic History, 69, 13–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeh.2018.03.003

Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803–815. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034

Sinatoko Djibo, B. O., Horsey, E. M. & Zhao, S. (2024). Good Innovation Capacity, Good Eco-Innovation Performance? From Firms Innovation, Learning Capacity, and Institutional Environment. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 15, 1179–1209. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01120-3

Kafetzopoulos, D., Gianni, M., & Samara, E. (2024). Eco-Innovation and Firms’ Performance: The Mediating Role of Eco-Innovation Strategy. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 15, 180–203. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02094-6

Xie, Y. (2024). Digital Inclusive Finance Drives Green Innovation: Pathways and Mechanisms for Sustainable Development. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 15, 241–260. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02497-5

Li, H., Li, J., & Qin, B. (2024). Does digital economy keep enterprises out of green innovation trouble? Evidence from “double carbon” goal. Environtal Science and Pollution Research, 31, 49855–49873. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-34476-3

Heubeck, T., & Meckl, R. (2024). Does board composition matter for innovation? A longitudinal study of the organizational slack–innovation relationship in Nasdaq-100 companies. Journal of Management and Governance, 28, 597–624. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-023-09687-4

Foster, L., Wiewiora, A. & Donnet, T. (2024). Integrating Knowledge Management and Governance for Innovation Outcomes: A New Framework for Managing Innovation in a Project Environment. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 15, 7143–7170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01399-2

Chatterjee, D., & Chatterjee, D. (2023). Internet of Things: Innovation in Evaluation Techniques. In: So-In, C., Londhe, N.D., Bhatt, N., & Kitsing, M. (eds) Information Systems for Intelligent Systems. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 324, 409–421. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7447-2_37

Naeem, R., Kohtamäki, M. & Parida, V. (2024). Artificial intelligence enabled product–service innovation: past achievements and future directions. Review of Managerail Science, 18(4), 1–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00757-x

Bresciani, S., Rizzo, F., & Mureddu, F. (2024). Indicators of Social Innovation for Cities’ Action Plans Evaluation. In: Assessment Framework for People-Centred Solutions to Carbon Neutrality. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology, 39–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53111-8_3

Liu, Y. (2024). Relationship between innovation intensity and different types of innovation performance: moderating effect of environmental uncertainty. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26, 28971–28994. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03851-4

Thao, H. T., & Xie, X. (2024). Fostering green innovation performance through open innovation strategies: do green subsidies work? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26, 18641–18671. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03409-4

Li, G., & Niu, W. (2025). How does fintech promote urban innovation? Empirical evidence from China. Economic Change and Restructuring, 58, 277–290. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-024-09844-1

Shakiba, H., & Belitski, M. (2024). A game theory analysis of regional innovation ecosystems. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 49(4), 1411–1443. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-024-10131-4

Cabaleiro-Cerviño, G., & Mendi, P. (2024). ESG-driven innovation strategy and firm performance.Eurasian Business Review, 14, 137–185. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-024-00254-x

Wang, N., Gong, Z., & Liu, Z. (2023). Dynamic simulation of green technology innovation in large construction companies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 114452–114470. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30276-3

Spigarelli, F., Compagnucci, L., & Lepore, D. (2024). Blockchain unlocking collaborative opportunities for environmental sustainability through innovation intermediaries. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 49, 1–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-024-10106-5

Wang, X., Yuan, M., & Suo, X. (2024). Strategic Imperatives of ESG in Fostering Corporate Digital Innovation: a Resource-Based View. Journal Knowledge of Economy, 15, 10200–10226. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02542-3

Zeng, Y., Fu, H., & Wei, Z. (2023). Conceptualizing disruptive innovation: an interpretive structural model approach. Management System Engineering, 2, 1–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44176-023-00013-8

Shestakov, D. Y. (2019). The Method of Real Options as an Instrument to Evaluate Projects with High Uncertainty. Business Inform, 2, 102–108. doi: https://doi.org/10.32983/2222-4459-2019-2-102-108 (in Ukranian)