IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v16y2023i8p372-d1216930.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

State-of-the-Art Review on the Analytic Hierarchy Process with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Antonella Petrillo

    (Department of Engineering, University of Naples “Parthenope”, 80143 Napoli, Italy)

  • Valerio Antonio Pamplona Salomon

    (Department of Production, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP–Sao Paulo State University), Guaratingueta 12516-410, SP, Brazil)

  • Claudemir Leif Tramarico

    (Department of Production, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP–Sao Paulo State University), Guaratingueta 12516-410, SP, Brazil)

Abstract

The benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks (BOCR) model is a multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model used to elicit a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive set of criteria. As an acronym proposed in the theory of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the BOCR model has received attention from users of this MCDM method. A state-of-the-art review, an approach to a literature review that is more comprehensive than a rapid review but not as exhaustive as a systematic literature review, was performed with the Scopus database. The overwhelming majority of documents found on BOCR were practical applications, but they were from diverse areas, including business, computer science, and engineering. It is proposed that two main kinds of contributions for future research on BOCR should be methodological and practical.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonella Petrillo & Valerio Antonio Pamplona Salomon & Claudemir Leif Tramarico, 2023. "State-of-the-Art Review on the Analytic Hierarchy Process with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:16:y:2023:i:8:p:372-:d:1216930
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/8/372/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/8/372/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    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. Valerio Antonio Pamplona Salomon & Luiz Flavio Autran Monteiro Gomes, 2024. "Consistency Improvement in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-13, March.

    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. Bice Cavallo, 2019. "Coherent weights for pairwise comparison matrices and a mixed-integer linear programming problem," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 143-161, September.
    2. D'ora Gr'eta Petr'oczy & L'aszl'o Csat'o, 2019. "Revenue allocation in Formula One: a pairwise comparison approach," Papers 1909.12931, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2020.
    3. Wang, Xiaojun & Chan, Hing Kai & Li, Dong, 2015. "A case study of an integrated fuzzy methodology for green product development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(1), pages 212-223.
    4. Lundy, Michele & Siraj, Sajid & Greco, Salvatore, 2017. "The mathematical equivalence of the “spanning tree” and row geometric mean preference vectors and its implications for preference analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 197-208.
    5. József Temesi, 2019. "An interactive approach to determine the elements of a pairwise comparison matrix," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 533-549, June.
    6. Doumpos, Michael & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2011. "Preference disaggregation and statistical learning for multicriteria decision support: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 209(3), pages 203-214, March.
    7. Paul Thaddeus Kazibudzki, 2016. "An examination of performance relations among selected consistency measures for simulated pairwise judgments," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 525-544, September.
    8. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    9. A. Psomas & I. Vryzidis & A. Spyridakos & M. Mimikou, 2021. "MCDA approach for agricultural water management in the context of water–energy–land–food nexus," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 689-723, March.
    10. Lai, Po‐Lin & Potter, Andrew & Beynon, Malcolm & Beresford, Anthony, 2015. "Evaluating the efficiency performance of airports using an integrated AHP/DEA-AR technique," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 75-85.
    11. Hurson, Christian & Siskos, Yannis, 2014. "A synergy of multicriteria techniques to assess additive value models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 540-551.
    12. Jiří Mazurek & Konrad Kulakowski, 2020. "Information gap in value propositions of business models of language schools," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 77-89.
    13. Kułakowski, Konrad, 2015. "Notes on order preservation and consistency in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(1), pages 333-337.
    14. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    15. Navid Nadimi & Rosalia Camporeale & Mostafa Khaleghi & Mohamadreza Haghani & Abbas Sheykhfard & Khaled Shaaban, 2023. "A Method to Determine an Equity Score for Transportation Systems in the Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, March.
    16. Bernard Roy & Roman Slowinski, 2013. "Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method," Post-Print hal-00874292, HAL.
    17. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    18. József Temesi, 2011. "Pairwise comparison matrices and the error-free property of the decision maker," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 19(2), pages 239-249, June.
    19. Wu-E Yang & Chao-Qun Ma & Zhi-Qiu Han & Wen-Jun Chen, 2016. "Checking and adjusting order-consistency of linguistic pairwise comparison matrices for getting transitive preference relations," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 38(3), pages 769-787, July.
    20. F A F Ferreira & S P Santos & P M M Rodrigues, 2011. "Adding value to bank branch performance evaluation using cognitive maps and MCDA: a case study," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(7), pages 1320-1333, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    AHP; BOCR; literature review; MCDM;
    All these keywords.

    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:gam:jjrfmx:v:16:y:2023:i:8:p:372-:d:1216930. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.