International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 17, No 3, June 2025
APPLYING CFAHP TO EXPLORE THE KEY MODELS
OF SEMICONDUCTOR PRE-SALES
Fei-Hon Kao 1, Chia-Hsiang Hsieh 2 and Wen Pei 2
1
Ph. D. Program of Management, College of Management, Chung Hua University,
Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C.
2
College of Management, Chung Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C.
ABSTRACT
This study applies the Consistent Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (CFAHP) to enhance pre-sales
decision-making in the semiconductor industry, addressing its complexity and uncertainty. A hierarchical
model was developed with three key dimensions—market, competitive, and technological environments—
and nine critical criteria. Based on expert evaluations from eight industry professionals, results indicate
that the market environment holds the greatest influence, with customer needs identified as the top
priority. Technology trends and risk assessment also emerged as significant factors. The proposed CFAHP
model provides a practical and systematic tool to support strategic planning, resource allocation, and risk
management in pre-sales processes.
KEYWORDS
Consistent Fuzzy AHP (CFAHP), Pre-sales Strategy, Semiconductor Industry, Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis (MCDA), Customer Needs, Technology Trends
1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the global semiconductor industry has encountered a multitude of challenges and
opportunities, driven by rapid technological advancement, diversified application scenarios, and
intensified international competition. The emergence of new domains such as artificial
intelligence (AI), high-performance computing (HPC), automotive electronics, the Internet of
Things (IoT), and green energy has imposed higher demands on chip design, manufacturing, and
service models. To maintain technological leadership and market share in this evolving
landscape, enterprises must strategically grasp customer needs and market dynamics during the
pre-sales phase—before a product officially enters the market. Strategic analysis and resource
allocation during this phase are essential to building trust and collaborative foundations with
potential customers [1].
Traditionally considered a phase of product introduction and technical support, the pre-sales
stage has evolved into a strategic process encompassing market research, demand shaping, value
proposition development, and risk management. Effective pre-sales planning can improve
customer satisfaction, accelerate product adoption, and enhance project success rates and
customer lifetime value (CLV). Moreover, pre-sales activities can help firms identify market
opportunities and potential threats early, serving as a basis for internal resource integration and
technology planning. This enhances organizational agility and competitive resilience. However,
under conditions of high technical barriers, market uncertainty, and rapid change, pre-sales
decision-making often involves multi-dimensional, multi-level, and highly fuzzy evaluation
elements. Traditional decision-making tools such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) or
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsit.2025.17302 25
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 17, No 3, June 2025
expert intuition methods are prone to subjective bias and information asymmetry, leading to
inadequate decision accuracy and poor consensus-building across teams. Thus, it becomes
imperative for enterprises to adopt a decision-support tool that balances professional judgment,
operational flexibility, and logical consistency [2][3].
To address these challenges, this study introduces the Consistent Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy
Process (CFAHP), which integrates the structural rigor of AHP with the flexibility of fuzzy logic
and the consistency principle of fuzzy preference relations. This method helps reduce semantic
ambiguity and logical inconsistency in expert assessments and supports the construction of a
decision evaluation model tailored to the pre-sales stage of the semiconductor industry. The
proposed framework incorporates three major dimensions—Market Environment, Competitive
Environment, and Technological Environment—further decomposed into nine evaluation
criteria. Expert questionnaires from industry professionals are employed for pairwise comparison
and weight analysis, aiming to offer practical and actionable references for pre-sales decision-
making, resource allocation, and strategic planning.
This research aims to assist semiconductor firms in identifying critical success factors at the
early stages of project development, thereby enhancing the strategic foresight and operational
adaptability of their pre-sales processes, and ultimately strengthening their overall
competitiveness in the global market.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to construct a systematic and operational semiconductor pre-sales evaluation model, this
study first reviews and summarizes relevant academic and industry literature, conducts in-depth
discussions on the three major dimensions that affect pre-sales strategy planning - market
environment, competitive environment, and technological environment - and extends to the nine
core criteria under each dimension to provide a theoretical basis for research model construction
and questionnaire design.
2.1. Market Environment
The market environment dimension focuses on the overall changes in the external market and
customer behavior, and is the first step for companies to formulate product positioning and
presales strategies [4][5], covering the following three key criteria.
2.1.1. Market Demand
Market demand represents the overall industry's willingness to purchase a certain type of product
or technology and its expected growth potential. Understanding market demand trends helps
companies adjust resource allocation and predict future revenue contributions. In the
semiconductor field, changes in demand are often synchronized with terminal applications. If
companies can accurately predict the demand expansion point, they will be able to enter the
market earlier and improve their competitiveness.
2.1.2. Customer Needs
Compared with the overall market trend, the needs of individual customers are more detailed and
project-oriented. The purchasing decisions of corporate customers include multiple aspects such
as functional adaptation, technical support and after-sales service; therefore, the pre-sales team
must have an in-depth understanding of the customer's product specification requirements,
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsit.2025.17302 26
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 17, No 3, June 2025
design process, implementation schedule and risk preferences to improve product fit and
proposal hit rate.
2.1.3. Market Entry Strategy
When companies enter new markets, they must consider product introduction timing,
segmentation choices, regulatory risks, and resource-bearing capacity. Market entry strategies
can be divided into pre-entry analysis, model selection (such as licensing, joint ventures, direct
investment) and localization adjustments. For semiconductor manufacturers, whether to
prioritize winning lead customers or adopt a wait-and-see strategy to observe the maturity of
standards are both key pre-sale decisions.
2.2. Competitive Environment
The competitive environment dimension focuses on the company's own positioning, value
proposition and market response capabilities, reflecting its relative attractiveness in the minds of
customers [6][7], covering the following three key criteria.
2.2.1. Competitive Advantage
According to the value chain theory, if a company can have differentiation capabilities in any
aspect of technology, delivery time, service or quality, it can establish a sustainable competitive
advantage. Dynamic capabilities are the key to maintaining the competitiveness of contemporary
high-tech companies. Rapid customized design and instant technical support are important
conditions for the success of semiconductor pre-sales.
2.2.2. Pricing Strategy
During the pre-sales evaluation stage, pricing strategy not only affects the profit structure, but
also affects customers' perception and acceptance of product value. Value-Based Pricing in the
enterprise customer market can better reflect the actual contribution of the product in the
customer system than cost-based pricing. If semiconductor products can effectively quantify
their value such as reducing power consumption and shortening development cycle, it will help
increase bargaining space.
2.2.3. Value Proposition
The value proposition is the main tool for a company to convey its core value and product
advantages, and is the core content of pre-sales briefings, proposals and bidding. The value
proposition is "the sum of benefits that the company promises to deliver to customers" and
should cover aspects such as technical capabilities, problem-solving solutions, and risk
protection. For semiconductor companies, a clear and differentiated value proposition can
effectively enhance customer trust and project success rate.
2.3.Technological Environment
The technological environment dimension reflects the industry innovation trend and project
introduction risk, and is a key factor that cannot be ignored in the decision-making process of the
high-tech industry [8][9]. It includes three criteria, which are described as follows.
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsit.2025.17302 27
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 17, No 3, June 2025
2.3.1. Technology Trends
The semiconductor industry is undergoing technological changes at an extremely fast pace; the
introduction of new processes, architectures, and materials often determines the product life
cycle and competitive window. The acceptance and diffusion speed of innovation directly affect
customer adoption willingness and corporate return on investment. If a company can grasp and
communicate the potential of future technological development that can be supported in the
presales stage, it will enhance its attractiveness as a strategic partner.
2.3.2. Risk and Opportunity Assessment
If there is no thorough evaluation during the pre-sales stage, the introduction of technology may
easily lead to R&D failure, delivery delay or customer loss. Enterprises should analyze the risks
of technology introduction and potential business opportunities in parallel, and use tools such as
simulation scenarios and risk matrices to assist in decision-making. Especially at key nodes such
as wafer processing and packaging modules, it is crucial to evaluate trial production risks and
back-end compatibility.
2.3.3. Existing Technology Development
The company's current technology maturity, application experience and scalability are also
important bases for pre-sales evaluation. The accumulation of technical capabilities and
operational experience can significantly reduce project uncertainty and enhance customer
adoption willingness and depth of cooperation. If the pre-sales team can clearly present existing
technological achievements and existing customer success stories, it will help improve the
persuasiveness of the project.
In summary, the formulation of pre-sales decisions needs to consider multiple factors such as
market trends, customer needs, corporate competitiveness, and technological variables. Existing
literature shows that these dimensions not only interact with each other, but also have fuzzy and
subjective characteristics. Therefore, this study uses FAHP for hierarchical construction and
weight evaluation as the theoretical basis for the subsequent decision-making model design.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This section elaborates on the research design and methodology adopted in this study, including
the research framework, introduction to the Consistent Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
(CFAHP), questionnaire design, data collection, and analytical procedures to ensure logical
consistency and methodological robustness in the weighting analysis.
3.1. Research Framework
The objective of this study is to construct an evaluative model for pre-sales decision-making in
the semiconductor industry. The model is structured around three primary dimensions and nine
criteria as follows:
(1)Market Environment (A):
A1. Market Demand
A2. Customer Needs
A3. Market Entry Strategy
(2)Competitive Environment (B):
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsit.2025.17302 28
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 17, No 3, June 2025
B1. Competitive Advantage
B2. Pricing Strategy
B3. Value Proposition
(3)Technological Environment (C):
C1. Technology Trends
C2. Risk and Opportunity Assessment
C3. Existing Technology Development
These nine criteria form the hierarchical structure used in the subsequent CFAHP comparative
analysis.
3.2. Overview of the Consistent Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (CFAHP)
3.2.1. Method Introduction
The Consistent Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (CFAHP) is an advanced hybrid decision
making method that integrates the structural rigor of the traditional Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) with the flexibility of fuzzy logic and the consistency advantages of Consistent Fuzzy
Preference Relations (CFPR). CFAHP effectively addresses the logical inconsistency issues
often encountered in traditional AHP when dealing with large-scale criteria comparisons
[10][11].
Unlike traditional AHP, which requires pairwise comparisons, CFAHP reduces this
to n(𝑛 − 1) comparisons through a mathematical transformation process. This reduction
significantly decreases the respondent's burden and enhances the consistency and reliability of
the input data (Chen & Lee, 2015).
3.2.2. Theoretical Principles
CFAHP constructs a fuzzy preference matrix 𝑃 based on consistent principles. Given any two
criteria 𝑎i and 𝑎j the preference value 𝑃ij ∈ [0,1] satisfies the following properties:
(1) Additive Reciprocity:
𝑃ij+ 𝑃ji = 1
(2) Additive Consistency:
A normalization transformation function is used to convert any out-of-bound $,&-
values into the standard interval.
3.2.3. Weight Computation Procedure
The CFAHP weighting process, adapted from Chen & Lee (2015), involves the following five
steps:
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsit.2025.17302 29
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 17, No 3, June 2025
(1) Questionnaire Design and Data Input
A 1–9 scale is adopted (e.g., “A is extremely more important than B” = 9; vice versa =
1/9) to need to n(𝑛 − 1)comparison. Expert judgments are aggregated using geometric
means.
(2) Construction of the Consistent Fuzzy Preference Matrix 𝑃
Linguistic scores are converted into fuzzy preference values 𝑃ij to form the 𝑛 × 𝑛
matrix.
(3) Normalization and Matrix Transformation
Values outside the [0,1] range are normalized using a transformation function.
(4) Weight Calculation
The fuzzy preference matrix 𝑃, is transformed into a fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix
𝐴,., and the weight for each criterion is computed by summing each row:
(5) Ranking and Consistency Check
If the additive consistency 𝑃ij condition is met for all combinations, the data is
considered consistent; otherwise, expert inputs are reviewed or revised.
3.2.4. Comparative Advantages of CFAHP
As shown in Table 1, CFAHP offers notable advantages over AHP and FAHP in terms of
consistency, efficiency, and suitability for complex decision-making environments, making it
particularly applicable for this study.
Table 1. Comparative Analysis of CFAHP Advantages
Item AHP FAHP CFAHP
Number of Comparisons n(n−1)/2 Same n−1
Consistency Control Yes Moderate Built-in Logical Consistency
Applicability Few criteria Moderate Many criteria with strict
criteria ordering needs
Respondent Burden High Moderate Low
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsit.2025.17302 30
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 17, No 3, June 2025
3.3. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection
3.3.1. Questionnaire Design Principles
The questionnaire was designed in accordance with the features of the CFAHP methodology,
which requires only n−1 pairwise comparisons to construct a consistent preference matrix. Given
the nine criteria in the proposed framework, only eight pairwise comparisons were required to
complete a single valid questionnaire. This design significantly reduced the cognitive load on
respondents and minimized potential input errors.
3.3.2. Expert Sampling Criteria
This study employed judgment sampling to recruit domain experts who possessed extensive
experience in semiconductor industry practices such as pre-sales operations, product marketing,
project evaluation, or technical implementation. The expert selection criteria were as follows:
(1) Currently or previously served as senior executives, strategists, product managers, client
developers, systems engineers, application engineers, or technical sales representatives;
(2) Possessed over 20 years of experience in the semiconductor field;
(3) Had professional familiarity with technical implementation and pre-sales assessment, and
were capable of making informed comparisons among criteria.
A total of eight valid questionnaires were distributed and collected. The expert profiles are
summarized in Table 2, demonstrating compliance with the CFAHP requirement for multi-expert
geometric mean aggregation, while ensuring both practical relevance and academic rigor.
Table 2. Expert Profiles
No. Experience (Years) Industry Position
1 40 Semiconductor Equipment Agent Chairman
2 35 Semiconductor Equipment Agent Marketing Director
3 30 IC Design House Vice President
4 30 Japanese Semiconductor Equipment Vice President
5 25 Semiconductor Equipment Agent CEO
6 25 Semiconductor Equipment Agent CEO
7 25 Precision Processing CEO
8 20 Korean Precision Equipment Company Vice President
3.3.3. Data Aggregation and Consistency Validation
Although the CFAHP method inherently incorporates consistency validation through its design
and does not require a traditional consistency ratio (CR) check, this study implemented
additional measures to ensure data quality:
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsit.2025.17302 31
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 17, No 3, June 2025
(1) Expert Opinion Aggregation: A geometric mean was applied to synthesize expert
judgments for each pairwise comparison, generating a single representative preference
matrix.
(2) Pre-Test and Review Mechanism: Prior to formal deployment, the questionnaire was
reviewed by two senior industry executives and one academic professor to confirm
clarity, semantic accuracy, and logical coherence.
(3) Outlier Treatment: If any respondent’s input significantly deviated from the aggregated
expert consensus, the data was verified with the respondent or excluded to ensure the
robustness and internal consistency of the dataset.
In conclusion, this study adopted the Consistent Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (CFAHP) to
effectively address the complex, multi-criteria, and linguistically ambiguous nature of pre-sales
decision-making in the semiconductor sector. By combining the structural robustness of AHP
with the linguistic flexibility of fuzzy logic and the logical consistency of CFPR, CFAHP
significantly reduces the burden on experts while enhancing the accuracy and integrity of the
resulting preference matrix.
To streamline data collection, the questionnaire was designed with only eight pairwise
comparisons, leveraging the advantages of CFAHP. Respondents were selected based on their
deep industry expertise (20+ years) and specialization in product, technical, or strategic domains,
ensuring that the results reflect both practical insight and academic robustness.
4. RESEARCH ANALYSIS
This study applies the Consistent Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (CFAHP) to examine the
critical factors influencing pre-sales decision-making in the semiconductor industry. By
integrating fuzzy logic with hierarchical analysis, the CFAHP framework improves both the
precision and adaptability of decision outcomes. The hierarchical structure consists of three
dimensions and nine evaluation criteria. After collecting expert responses through structured
questionnaires, global and local weights were computed (as shown in Table 3) and served as the
basis for strategic recommendations.
Table 3. Results of CFAHP Weight Analysis
Dimension Dimension Global Criterion Criterion Local Overall Rank
Code Name Weight Code Name Weight Weight
Market A1 Market 0.1519 0.0738 6
A Environment 0.4857 Demand
A2 Customer 0.6789 0.3397 1
Needs
A3 Market Entry 0.1692 0.0821 4
Strategy
B Competitive 0.1933 B1 Competitive 0.273 0.0528 9
Environment Advantage
B2 Pricing 0.4161 0.0804 5
Strategy
B3 Value 0.3109 0.0601 7
Proposition
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsit.2025.17302 32
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 17, No 3, June 2025
Dimension Dimension Global Criterion Criterion Local Overall Rank
Code Name Weight Code Name Weight Weight
C Technological 0.3209 C1 Technology 0.4135 0.1327 2
Environment Trends
C2 Risk and 0.3965 0.1272 3
Opportunity
Assessment
C3 Existing 0.19 0.0610 8
Technology
Development
4.1. Market Environment
The Market Environment dimension received the highest global weight of 0.4857, indicating that
firms prioritize market dynamics and customer orientation during the pre-sales phase.
Specifically, Customer Needs (A2) emerged as the most critical criterion with an overall weight
of 0.3397, reflecting the semiconductor industry's reliance on rapid, accurate responses to
customer-specific demands in order to gain market traction. Additionally, Market Entry Strategy
(A3) with a weight of 0.0821 and Market Demand (A1) with 0.0738 further emphasize the
necessity of forecasting market shifts and tailoring entry strategies to maintain competitiveness.
4.2. Technological Environment
The Technological Environment ranked second among the three dimensions with a global weight
of 0.3209. Within this domain, Technology Trends (C1) was the second most important criterion
overall, with a weight of 0.1327, underscoring the importance of continuous monitoring of
innovations such as advanced packaging, AI-driven EDA, and EUV lithography. Similarly, Risk
and Opportunity Assessment (C2) scored 0.1272, emphasizing the dual imperative of risk control
and opportunity identification when shaping pre-sales technological strategies. While Existing
Technology Development (C3) had relatively lower weight (0.0610), it remains an important
supporting factor for demonstrating technological maturity and deployment readiness.
4.3. Competitive Environment
The Competitive Environment dimension received a lower global weight of 0.1933, yet its
internal criteria hold significant strategic implications. Pricing Strategy (B2) had the highest
weight within this group at 0.0804, signifying the need for price flexibility and responsiveness to
market competition during the pre-sales phase. Value Proposition (B3) and Competitive
Advantage (B1), with weights of 0.0601 and 0.0528 respectively, reflect the importance of
clearly articulating product differentiation and core competencies to strengthen client
engagement and win rates.
4.4. Strategic Implications
Based on the CFAHP results, this study proposes the following strategic recommendations to
guide firms in optimizing their pre-sales approach:
(1) Prioritize customer needs discovery:
Establish data-driven customer feedback systems and AI-enabled predictive models to
uncover pain points and anticipate design requirements.
(2) Monitor and align with technological trends:
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsit.2025.17302 33
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 17, No 3, June 2025
Leverage patent landscape analysis, trend mapping, and participation in international
tech forums to align product development with future industry trajectories.
(3) Develop integrated risk-opportunity management frameworks:
Adopt tools such as risk matrices and SWOT-based scenario planning to proactively
address technical uncertainties and commercial opportunities.
(4) Adopt flexible market entry and pricing strategies:
Customize strategies based on application domains (e.g., automotive, AIoT,
highperformance computing) and seek early partnerships with lead customers to
enhance market penetration.
(5) Enhance value proposition clarity and competitiveness:
Refine messaging to emphasize problem-solving capacity, risk mitigation assurance,
and quantifiable value; incorporate successful case studies and technical achievements
to build credibility.
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusion
This study aims to construct a comprehensive evaluation model tailored for the pre-sales stage of
the semiconductor industry. Utilizing the Consistent Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
(CFAHP), the model integrates three primary dimensions — Market Environment, Competitive
Environment, and Technological Environment — further decomposed into nine critical
evaluation criteria. Expert judgments from seasoned professionals were collected and analyzed
to determine relative weightings among the criteria.
The results reveal that the Market Environment has the most significant influence on pre-sales
decision-making, with a global weight of 0.4857. Among its sub-criteria, Customer Needs stands
out as the most crucial factor (overall weight 0.3397), indicating that in highly dynamic and
competitive markets, firms must base their pre-sales strategies on a deep understanding of
customer pain points and application scenarios to enhance proposal accuracy and design
differentiation.
The second most important dimension is the Technological Environment (global weight 0.3209),
where Technology Trends (0.1327) and Risk and Opportunity Assessment (0.1272) rank highly.
These findings emphasize the necessity for companies to simultaneously track emerging
technologies and incorporate risk control mechanisms at the early stages of engagement to
maintain technological leadership and strategic foresight.
Although the Competitive Environment has a comparatively lower global weight (0.1933), its
internal criteria — Pricing Strategy, Value Proposition, and Competitive Advantage — possess
clear operational significance. These criteria function as essential supporting elements in pre-
sales strategies, particularly in conveying differentiated value and responding to market
dynamics.
Overall, the CFAHP-based model developed in this study not only identifies the key factors
affecting pre-sales decision-making but also provides a practical reference for resource
allocation, risk management, and strategic planning. The results offer both theoretical
contributions and practical guidance to improve the systematicity and foresight of pre-sales
operations in the semiconductor sector.
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsit.2025.17302 34
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 17, No 3, June 2025
5.2. Recommendations
Based on the findings, this study offers the following practical and academic recommendations
for the semiconductor industry and future research:
5.2.1. Managerial Recommendations
(1) Implement data-driven customer insights and forecasting systems
Firms should build integrated customer data platforms combining CRM, pre-sales visit
records, and design requirement databases. AI-based forecasting models can be applied
to analyze emerging demand trends, enhancing proposal accuracy and customization
capabilities.
(2) Strengthen technology radar and foresight planning
Semiconductor firms are advised to actively participate in international technology
conferences, academic symposia, and patent landscape analyses to establish a
forwardlooking technology radar. This can guide R&D investments and reduce
misjudgment risks.
(3) Establish risk-opportunity balanced evaluation processes
Incorporate tools such as SWOT cross-analysis, risk matrices, and scenario simulations
into the pre-sales phase to visualize risks and design opportunity-oriented
countermeasures. This enhances project success rates and organizational agility.
(4) Adopt flexible pricing and market entry strategies
Tailor pricing and market entry approaches based on specific application domains (e.g.,
automotive, AIoT, high-performance computing). Seek partnerships with lead
customers during early product adoption phases to accelerate market diffusion and
acceptance.
(5) Reinforce alignment between value propositions and competitive advantages Firms
should articulate their value propositions around problem-solving capabilities, risk
mitigation commitments, and quantifiable benefits. Integrating technical advantages
and past success cases can enhance customer trust and collaboration intent.
5.2.2. Suggestions for Future Research
(1) Expand evaluation dimensions and criteria
While this study focuses on three dimensions and nine criteria, future research may
consider incorporating additional factors such as regulatory environment, supply chain
resilience, or ESG sustainability to enhance model comprehensiveness.
(2) Incorporate dynamic weighting and fuzzy temporal logic
Given the time-sensitive nature of pre-sales strategy, future studies could integrate
fuzzy temporal logic or dynamic AHP to simulate strategic adjustments over time.
(3) Conduct cross-regional and cultural comparisons
Pre-sales strategies may vary across regions (e.g., Taiwan, the United States, Japan)
due to differences in market maturity and business culture. Comparative studies across
different geographies could further enrich the understanding of contextual influences.
REFERENCE
[1] J. Park et al., “Advancing Condition-Based Maintenance in the Semiconductor Industry:
Innovations, Challenges and Future Directions for Predictive Maintenance,” IEEE Trans.
Semicond. Manufact., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 96–105, 2025, doi: 10.1109/TSM.2025.3530964.
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsit.2025.17302 35
International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 17, No 3, June 2025
[2] S. Tian, M. Wang, L. Wu, A. Kumar, and K. H. Tan, “Sustainability diffusion in the Chinese
semiconductor industry: A stakeholder salience perspective,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 279, 2025,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109470.
[3] G. Chanana, N. Palia, and R. Sharma, “Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Initiatives in the
Semiconductor Industry,” in Proc. 2024 2nd Int. Conf. Advancements and Key Challenges in Green
Energy and Computing (AKGEC), pp. 1–5, 2024, doi: 10.1109/AKGEC62572.2024.10868430.
[4] J. J. Kim, K. H. Kim, C. L. Lee, J. H. Park, and H. Chung, “The Impact of Technological
Capability on Financial Performance in the Semiconductor Industry,” Sustainability, 2021, doi:
10.3390/su13020489.
[5] Y. H. Lee, “Supply chain model for the semiconductor industry of global market,” Special Issue on
the New Trends in System Integration: Progesses and Perspectives in Korea, vol. 10, no. 3, pp.
189– 206, 2001.
[6] W. J. Henisz and J. T. Macher, “Firm- and Country-Level Trade-Offs and Contingencies in the
Evaluation of Foreign Investment: The Semiconductor Industry, 1994-2002,” Organ. Sci., vol. 15,
no. 5, pp. 537–554, 2004, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0091.
[7] R. Chaudhuri, B. Singh, A. K. Agrawal, S. Chatterjee, S. Gupta, and S. K. Mangla, “A TOE-DCV
approach to green supply chain adoption for sustainable operations in the semiconductor industry,”
Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 275, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109327.
[8] S. A. Solucis, J. Sreenivasan, and K. L. J. Chong, “Competitive factors of semiconductor industry
in Malaysia: the managers’ perspectives,” Competitiveness Rev.: Int. Bus. J., vol. 16, no. 3/4, pp.
197– 211, 2006, doi: 10.1108/cr.2006.16.3_4.197.
[9] M. Bergh and S. Strugholz, Artificial Intelligence: From Data to Insights: Artificial Intelligence in
Digital Transformation Strategies in the Semiconductor Industry. Linnaeus University, 2023.
[10] T.-K. Hsu and C.-Y. Kuo, “Using CFAHP and IPGA Method to Establish the Importance Criteria
on the Haccp System for Hospital Kitchens in Taiwan,” Int. J. Organ. Innov., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 30–
42, 2025.
[11] J.-J. Huang and C.-Y. Chen, “A Generalized Method for Deriving Steady-State Behavior of
Consistent Fuzzy Priority for Interdependent Criteria,” Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 18, p. 2863, 2024,
doi: 10.3390/math12182863.
AUTHORS
Chia-Hsiang Hsieh holds a Ph.D. in Technology Management from Chung Hua
University and is currently serving as an Assistant Professor at the College of
Management, Chung Hua University. His research interests include creative
marketing, digital transformation, digital marketing, and cultural and creative
marketing. His academic work has been published in journals such as Journal of
Innovation and Business Management, Journal of Electrical Engineering and
Technology, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, The Open
Cybernetics & Systemics Journal, Journal of Exercise and Health Research, Journal of Quality, The Asian
Journal on Quality, Taiwan Journal of Marketing Science, and Green Economics, Journal of Exercise and
Health Research.
Wen Pei is a dean, College of Management, Chung Hua University, Chairman and
Professor of Ph.D. Management Program, Chung Hua University. He earned Ph.D.
from The University of Texas at Arlington and Master from The University of Texas
at Arlington. His academic expertise on Enterprise Strategic Planning, Ant colony
Theory, Fuzzy Management. He is also a board member, Cheng Tang Co. and Yue
Lan Education Foundation.
DOI: 10.5121/ijcsit.2025.17302 36
