IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/retrec/v8y2004i1p443-462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Strategic Evaluation Of New Technologies Through Multicriteria Analysis: The Advisors Case

Author

Listed:
  • Macharis, Cathy
  • Verbeke, Alain
  • De Brucker, Klaas

Abstract

The authors of this paper, economic experts participating in the ADVISORS project, a large scale, pan-European study co-funded by the European Union (2000-2002), have developed a strategic evaluation methodology building upon multicriteria analysis (MCA), to assess advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). ADAS is a set of new technologies intended to fundamentally improve road safety in the European Union. This paper includes a description of this new MCA methodology as it was applied to ADAS. This new MCA methodology is based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) of Saaty and synthesises information from both stakeholder analyses and technical performance studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Macharis, Cathy & Verbeke, Alain & De Brucker, Klaas, 2004. "The Strategic Evaluation Of New Technologies Through Multicriteria Analysis: The Advisors Case," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 443-462, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:retrec:v:8:y:2004:i:1:p:443-462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0739-8859(04)08019-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert T. Eckenrode, 1965. "Weighting Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 180-192, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lee, Deok-Joo, 2018. "A multi-criteria approach for prioritizing advanced public transport modes (APTM) considering urban types in Korea," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 148-161.
    2. Cathy Macharis & Peter Nijkamp, 2013. "Stakeholder bias in multi-actor multi-criteria transportation evaluation: issues and solutions," Chapters, in: Thomas Vanoutrive & Ann Verhetsel (ed.), Smart Transport Networks, chapter 12, pages 248-268, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Turcksin, Laurence & Macharis, Cathy & Lebeau, Kenneth & Boureima, Faycal & Van Mierlo, Joeri & Bram, Svend & De Ruyck, Jacques & Mertens, Lara & Jossart, Jean-Marc & Gorissen, Leen & Pelkmans, Luc, 2011. "A multi-actor multi-criteria framework to assess the stakeholder support for different biofuel options: The case of Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 200-214, January.
    4. Sandrine Meyer & Julien Matheys & Annalia Bernardini & Tom Van Lier & Andrew Ferrone & Philippe Marbaix & Patrick Grenier, 2012. "Aviation and the Belgian Climate Policy: Integration Options and Impacts: Phase II: ABC Impacts," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/137072, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    6. Levi Vermote & Cathy Macharis & Koen Putman, 2013. "A Road Network for Freight Transport in Flanders: Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Assessment of Alternative Ring Ways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(10), pages 1-25, September.
    7. Johanna Camargo Pérez & Martha Carrillo & Jairo Montoya-Torres, 2015. "Multi-criteria approaches for urban passenger transport systems: a literature review," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 69-87, March.
    8. Macharis, Cathy, 2004. "The importance of stakeholder analysis in freight transport," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 25-26, pages 114-126.
    9. Brucker, Klaas De & Verbeke, Alain & Macharis, Cathy, 2004. "The Applicability Of Multicriteria-Analysis To The Evaluation Of Intelligent Transport Systems (Its)," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 151-179, January.
    10. Henry Huang & Yves De Smet & Cathy Macharis & Nguyen Anh Vu Doan, 2020. "Collaborative decision-making in sustainable mobility: identifying possible consensuses in the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis based on inverse mixed-integer linear optimization," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/311571, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    11. Thomas Vanoutrive & Ann Verhetsel (ed.), 2013. "Smart Transport Networks," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15483.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Taking a closer look at multiple criteria analysis and economic evaluation," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139785, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    3. Renaud, Jean & Levrat, Eric & Fonteix, Christian, 2008. "Weights determination of OWA operators by parametric identification," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 77(5), pages 499-511.
    4. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    5. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
    6. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Multi-attributed environmental index construction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 122-139, April.
    7. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    8. Macharis, Cathy & De Witte, Astrid & Turcksin, Laurence, 2010. "The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 303-311, September.
    9. Mikkel Bojesen & Luc Boerboom & Hans Skov-Petersen, 2014. "Towards a sustainable capacity expansion of the Danish biogas sector," IFRO Working Paper 2014/03, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    10. Zenonas Turskis & Violeta Keršulienė, 2024. "SHARDA–ARAS: A Methodology for Prioritising Project Managers in Sustainable Development," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    11. Fausto Cavallaro & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Saulius Raslanas, 2016. "Evaluation of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems Using Fuzzy Shannon Entropy and Fuzzy TOPSIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-21, June.
    12. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Can microalgae biodiesel contribute to achieve the sustainability objectives in the transport sector in France by 2030? A comparison between first, second and third generation biofuels though a range-," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1032-1046.
    13. Siti FarhanahHasnan* & RazaminRamli & Mohd. NoorAbdul Hamid, 2018. "Discovering Important Criteria for National Culture towards Harmony in Malaysia Based on Rank Order Centroid Weighting Method," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, pages 260-265:6.
    14. Dillon, John L. & Perry, Chad, 1977. "Multiattribute Utility Theory, Multiple Objectives And Uncertainty In Ex Ante Project Evaluation," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(01-2), pages 1-25, March.
    15. Stefan Hajkowicz & Kerry Collins, 2007. "A Review of Multiple Criteria Analysis for Water Resource Planning and Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(9), pages 1553-1566, September.
    16. Shirland, Larry E. & Jesse, Richard R. & Thompson, Ronald L. & Iacovou, Charalambos L., 2003. "Determining attribute weights using mathematical programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 423-437, December.
    17. Vaida Zemlickienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2022. "Determination of Importance of Key Decision Points in the Technology Commercialization Process: Attitude of the US and German Experts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-13, November.
    18. Julia R. Falconer & Eibe Frank & Devon L. L. Polaschek & Chaitanya Joshi, 2022. "Methods for Eliciting Informative Prior Distributions: A Critical Review," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 189-204, September.
    19. Renaud, J. & Thibault, J. & Lanouette, R. & Kiss, L.N. & Zaras, K. & Fonteix, C., 2007. "Comparison of two multicriteria decision aid methods: Net Flow and Rough Set Methods in a high yield pulping process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1418-1432, March.
    20. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Range-based Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis: A combined method of Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis and Monte Carlo simulation to support participatory decision making under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 257-269.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:retrec:v:8:y:2004:i:1:p:443-462. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620614/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.