Abstract
This study presents a dedicated bibliometric analysis of MICMAC research within prospective and foresight
studies (2016–2025), based on 921 English-language articles retrieved from Scopus and analyzed using the
bibliometrix package in RStudio following a PRISMA-based selection procedure. Performance analysis and science
mapping techniques - including citation analysis, keyword co-occurrence networks, thematic mapping, and author co
citation analysis - were systematically applied. Results confirm a strong growth trajectory in MICMAC-related
publications alongside rising international visibility. The method is now predominantly deployed within hybrid
frameworks combining structural modeling and multi-criteria decision-support approaches. Thematically, the field
centers on sustainability, decision-making, supply chain management, and industrial transformation, marking a clear
shift from MICMAC's original strategic prospective roots toward broader applied research. A concentrated intellectual
and geographic structure further characterizes the field's development. As the first systematic bibliometric mapping
dedicated to MICMAC in foresight studies, this article fills a notable gap and provides an empirical foundation for
future cross-disciplinary research.
studies (2016–2025), based on 921 English-language articles retrieved from Scopus and analyzed using the
bibliometrix package in RStudio following a PRISMA-based selection procedure. Performance analysis and science
mapping techniques - including citation analysis, keyword co-occurrence networks, thematic mapping, and author co
citation analysis - were systematically applied. Results confirm a strong growth trajectory in MICMAC-related
publications alongside rising international visibility. The method is now predominantly deployed within hybrid
frameworks combining structural modeling and multi-criteria decision-support approaches. Thematically, the field
centers on sustainability, decision-making, supply chain management, and industrial transformation, marking a clear
shift from MICMAC's original strategic prospective roots toward broader applied research. A concentrated intellectual
and geographic structure further characterizes the field's development. As the first systematic bibliometric mapping
dedicated to MICMAC in foresight studies, this article fills a notable gap and provides an empirical foundation for
future cross-disciplinary research.
Cuvinte cheie
MICMAC analysis
prospective studies
foresight
bibliometric analysis
decision making
Istoric articol
Publicat
26.06.2026
Informații autori
Citare recomandată
HOUSSAME EDDINE BALOULI (2026). MICMAC IN PROSPECTIVE AND FORESIGHT STUDIES: A SCOPUS-BASED BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL RESEARCH TRENDS. Constantin Brâncuși University of Târgu Jiu Economics Series, 1(3), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.65631/jes.3.2026.1
Referințe bibliografice
[1] Ko, B. K., & Yang, J. S. (2024). Developments and challenges of foresight evaluation: Review of the past 30 years of research. Futures, 155, 103291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103291
[2] Grassi, G., Zennaro, F., Ferraro, G., Beunen, R., Douguet, J.-M., & Furlan, E. (2025). Strategic foresight analysis for the management of land-sea interface in a climate change context: A comprehensive literature review. Environmental Science & Policy, 171, 104111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104111
[3] Marinković, M., Al-Tabbaa, O., Khan, Z., & Wu, J. (2022). Corporate foresight: A systematic literature review and future research trajectories. Journal of Business Research, 144, 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.097
[4] Godet, M. (1986). Introduction to la prospective. Futures, 18(2), 134–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(86)90094-7
[5] Godet, M. (2000). The art of scenarios and strategic planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 65(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(99)00120-1
[6] Godet, M., & Roubelat, F. (1996). Creating the future: The use and misuse of scenarios. Long Range Planning, 29(2), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(96)00004-0
[7] Tripathi, S., Bachmann, N., Brunner, M., & Jodlbauer, H. (2022). Analyzing cross-impact matrices for managerial decision-making problems with the DEMATEL approach. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Data Science, Technology and Applications (pp. 370–382). SCITEPRESS. https://doi.org/10.5220/0011274600003269
[8] Godet, A., Meunier, M., & Roubelat, F. (2003). Structural analysis with the MICMAC method & actors’ strategy with MACTOR method. Futuribles Methodology, 7(4), 1–11.
[9] Bootz, J. P., Monti, R., Durance, P., Pacini, V., & Chapuy, P. (2019). The links between French school of foresight and organizational learning: An assessment of developments in the last ten years. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 92–104.
[10] Hoang, A. D. (2025). Evaluating bibliometrics reviews: A practical guide for peer review and critical reading. Evaluation Review, 49(6), 1074–1102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X251336839
[11] Sossa, J. W. Z., Ríos, V. T. Á., López, C. A. G., & Piedrahita, J. C. P. (2021). Foresight by scenarios—a literature review. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 15(4), 230. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2021.118801
[12] Riadh, H. (2022). Intelligent tourism system using prospective techniques and the MACTOR methodology: A case study of Tunisian tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(9), 1376–1398. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1937072
[13] Johansen, I. (2018). Scenario modelling with morphological analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 126, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.016
[14] Bashir, H., Hamid, S. A. K., Ojiako, U., Haridy, S., & Shamsuzzaman, M. (2022). An integrated ISM-fuzzy MICMAC approach for modeling and analyzing information flows among product development project activities. In 2022 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASET53988.2022.9735013
[15] Das, D., & Sengar, A. (2023). Analysis of factors inhibiting the customer engagement of eHealth in India: Modeling the barriers using ISM-fuzzy MICMAC analysis. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 178, 105199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105199
[16] Favoretto, C., Mendes, G. H. S. D., Mota, R. D. O., Filho, M. G., Osiro, L., & Ganga, G. M. D. M. (2024). An integrated ISM fuzzy MICMAC approach for unfolding digital servitization implementation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 39(9), 2038–2054. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2022-0254
[17] Nazlabadi, E., Maknoon, R., Moghaddam, M. R. A., & Daigger, G. T. (2023). A novel MICMAC approach for cross-impact analysis with application to urban water/wastewater management. Expert Systems with Applications, 230, 120667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120667
[18] Chen, J. (2020). An extensional MICMAC method to identify the key factors. Academic Journal of Business & Management, 2(5). https://doi.org/10.25236/AJBM.2020.020508
[19] Chuaphun, P., & Samanchuen, T. (2024). Exploring success factors and relationships in virtual learning using ISM and fuzzy MICMAC analysis. Heliyon, 10(7).
[20] Rendon, I. P., Paclipan, C., Villamor, F., Campita, R. A., Orquia, C. J., Bacalso, F., et al. (2026). ISM-MICMAC analysis of advanced manufacturing technology adoption enablers and barriers. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 18(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSKD.400142
[21] Anzules-Falcones, W., Díaz-Marquez, A. M., Padilla, L., & Sánchez-Grisales, D. (2021). Foresight for small and medium enterprises in the context of the circular economy. Foresight and STI Governance, 15(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2021.1.86.96
[22] Gadekar, R., Sarkar, B., & Gadekar, A. (2024). Model development for assessing inhibitors impacting Industry 4.0 implementation in Indian manufacturing industries: An integrated ISM-fuzzy MICMAC approach. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 15(2), 646–671.
[23] Szpilko, D., Rzepka, A., Nica, E., Lăzăroiu, G., & Gedeon, T. (2025). What factors will shape the future of sustainable and smart cities in Europe? Evidence from the Delphi study. Economics and Environment, 94(3), 1272. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2025.94.3.1272
[24] Zartha Sossa, J. W., Gutiérrez Posada, N., Zuluaga Monsalve, A. M., Valencia Grisales, L., Hernández Becerra, E., Orozco Mendoza, G. L., et al. (2025). Future perspectives in plantain agro-chain by foresight-by-scenarios and Delphi analysis. Foresight, 27(1), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-03-2024-0043
[25] Dalvand, A., Aazami, H., Akbarniakhaky, H., & al. (2026). A bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on diabetes mellitus: Global research trends from Scopus database (1988–2024). Cardiovascular Diabetology Reports, 12(1), 10.
[26] Ng, J. Y., Stephen, D., Liu, J., Ostermann, T., Robinson, N., & Cramer, H. (2025). Bibliometrics and altmetrics in traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine. Integrative Medicine Research, 14(3), 101181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2025.101181
[27] You, C., Awang, S. R., & Wu, Y. (2024). Bibliometric analysis of global research trends on higher education leadership development. Discover Sustainability, 5(1), 246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00432-x
[28] Gibson, E., Daim, T., Garces, E., & Dabic, M. (2018). Technology foresight: A bibliometric analysis to identify leading and emerging methods. Foresight and STI Governance, 12(1), 6–24.
[29] Perwitasari, I., Firmansyah, F., & Triharjanto, R. H. (2026). Space economy research trends for foresight analysis. Journal of Aerospace Technology and Management, 18, e0826. https://doi.org/10.1590/jatm.v18.1416
[30] Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71