This study develops a Full Compliance Model (FUCOM) to systematically prioritize the innovation needs of Arya Sasol Polymer Company (ASPC) within an ecosystem-informed organizational context. By applying the FUCOM, the research derives robust and internally consistent weightings for innovation requirements across four major units: Olefin, Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE), High-Density and Medium-Density Polyethylene (HDPE/MDPE), and Energy. The findings reveal a distinct hierarchy of needs shaped by technological complexity, operational interdependencies, and capability gaps, with the highest-ranking priorities relating to feedstock quality, process reliability, product consistency, and energy optimization. The results also demonstrate strong consistency in expert judgments, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.94 to 0.98 across units. The study contributes to innovation ecosystem theory by operationalizing a firm-level prioritization approach that reflects external ecosystem pressures while supporting internal strategic alignment. Practically, the model provides a structured decision-support tool for resource allocation, capability development, and long-term innovation planning in complex industrial environments.
AbbateTCodiniAAquilaniB, et al. (2022) From knowledge ecosystems to capabilities ecosystems: when open innovation digital platforms lead to value co-creation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy13(1): 290–304.
2.
AcsZJAutioESzerbL (2014) National systems of entrepreneurship: measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy43(3): 476–494.
3.
AdnerR (2006) Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review84(4): 98–148.
4.
AdnerR (2017) Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management43(1): 39–58.
5.
AkbariMMeshramSGKrishnaRS, et al. (2021) Identification of the groundwater potential recharge zones using MCDM models: full consistency method (FUCOM), best worst method (BWM) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Water Resources Management35(14): 4727–4745.
6.
AudretschDBBelitskiM (2021) Towards an entrepreneurial ecosystem typology for regional economic development: the role of creative class and entrepreneurship. Regional Studies55(4): 735–756.
7.
AudretschDBBelitskiMCherkasN (2021) Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: the role of institutions. PLoS One16(3): e0247609.
8.
AvisonDJonesJPowellP, et al. (2004) Using and validating the strategic alignment model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems13(3): 223–246.
9.
Babaei LayaeiMBarikiSGMovahediradS (2024) Comparative analysis of artificial neural network (ANN) models: CO2 loading in MDEA and blended MDEA/PZ solvents. Fuel357: 129667.
10.
BakhtomAGhasemzade BarikiSMovahediradS, et al. (2023) Machine learning-guided prediction and optimization of precipitation efficiency in the Bayer process. Chemical Papers77(5): 2509–2524.
11.
BarikiSGMovahediradS (2024) Hydrodynamic characteristics of core/shell microdroplets formation: map of the flow patterns in double-T microchannel. Chemical Engineering Journal479: 147749.
12.
BergeronFRaymondLRivardS (2004) Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business performance. Information & Management41(8): 1003–1020.
13.
CarnesCMHittMASirmonDG, et al. (2022) Leveraging resources for innovation: the role of synchronization. Journal of Product Innovation Management39(2): 160–176.
14.
ChesbroughHW (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business Press.
15.
CobbenDOomsWRoijakkersN, et al. (2022) Ecosystem types: a systematic review on boundaries and goals. Journal of Business Research142: 138–164.
16.
CohenWMLevinthalDA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly35(1): 128–152.
17.
ColtmanTTallonPSharmaR, et al. (2015) Strategic IT alignment: twenty-five years on. Journal of Information Technology30(2): 91–100.
18.
CompagnucciLSpigarelliF (2025) Industrial doctorates: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. Studies in Higher Education50(6): 1076–1103.
19.
CompagnucciLSpigarelliFPeruginiF, et al. (2024) Industrial doctorates for regional development: the case of Le Marche Region. Higher Education: 1–21.
20.
CompagnucciLSpigarelliFPeruginiF, et al. (2025) Does the hub and spoke model matter for university-industry engagement in innovation ecosystems?The Journal of Technology Transfer: 1–32.
21.
Dias Sant´ AnaTde Souza BermejoPHMoreiraMF, et al. (2020) The structure of an innovation ecosystem: foundations for future research. Management Decision58(12): 2725–2742.
22.
EtzkowitzHLeydesdorffL (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy29(2): 109–123.
23.
FikselJFikselJR (2015) Resilient by Design: Creating Businesses that Adapt and Flourish in a Changing World. Island Press.
24.
GranstrandOHolgerssonM (2020) Innovation ecosystems: a conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation90-91: 102098.
25.
HayterCSNelsonAJZayedS, et al. (2018) Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: a review, analysis and extension of the literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer43(4): 1039–1082.
26.
HendersonJCVenkatramanH (1999) Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal38(2.3): 472–484.
27.
LinJ (2002) Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory37(1): 145–151.
28.
MohammadiMehdiKhobrehMahdi (2022) Mutual Participation Decision-Making Model of Startups and Venture Capitalists. Industrial Management14(3): 359–390.
29.
Oliveira‐DuarteLReisDAFleuryAL, et al. (2021) Innovation ecosystem framework directed to sustainable development goal# 17 partnerships implementation. Sustainable Development29(5): 1018–1036.
30.
PamučarDStevićŽSremacS (2018) A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in mcdm models: full consistency method (fucom). Symmetry10(9): 393.
31.
PamučarDEcerFCirovicG, et al. (2020) Application of improved best worst method (BWM) in real-world problems. Mathematics8(8): 1342.
32.
PiantoniGArenaMAzzoneG (2023) Exploring how different innovation ecosystems create shared value: insights from a multiple case study analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management26(7): 206–232.
33.
PodvezkoV (2009) Application of AHP technique. Journal of Business Economics and Management10: 181–189.
34.
Rabelo NetoJFigueiredoCGabrielBC, et al. (2024) Factors for innovation ecosystem frameworks: comprehensive organizational aspects for evolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change203: 123383.
35.
RomeroDMolinaA (2009) Value co-creation and co-innovation: linking networked organisations and customer communities. In: Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, 401–412.
VolberdaHWFossNJLylesMA (2010) Perspective—Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: how to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science21(4): 931–951.
38.
WangCLAhmedPK (2007) Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews9(1): 31–51.
39.
WarneckeTBalzac-ArroyoJ (2023) Community, capabilities, and the social entrepreneurship ecosystem. Community Development54(3): 359–381.
40.
ZahraSAGeorgeG (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review27(2): 185–203.
