IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v10y2022i11p213-d967656.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of the PRISM Risk Assessment Method Based on a Multiple AHP-TOPSIS Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Ferenc Bognár

    (Department of Management and Business Economics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Magyar Tudósok Körútja 2, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Balázs Szentes

    (Department of Management, University of Pannonia, Egyetem utca 10, H-8200 Veszprém, Hungary)

  • Petra Benedek

    (Department of Management and Business Economics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Magyar Tudósok Körútja 2, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract

The PRISM method is a risk assessment approach that focuses on hidden-risk identification and ranking. The combined AHP-PRISM method was created for strategic assessments based on pairwise comparisons. The PRISM and AHP-PRISM methods have remarkable visual decision support and control functions that make them useful in practical problem solving. However, the methods can be successfully applied with the same factor weights. To eliminate this significant disadvantage and enable an in-depth analysis of the alternatives based on the ideal best and ideal worst solutions, AHP-PRISM was integrated with TOPSIS in this study. As a result, the novel AHP-TOPSIS-based PRISM method can be configured more extensively for practical decision-making problems than the previous PRISM approaches. In addition, the novel method supports the ideal best and worst analysis of the alternatives without losing its ability to focus on identifying hidden risk. The method was tested on data related to strategic incident groups of incoming logistics business processes at a nuclear power plant.

Suggested Citation

  • Ferenc Bognár & Balázs Szentes & Petra Benedek, 2022. "Development of the PRISM Risk Assessment Method Based on a Multiple AHP-TOPSIS Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:10:y:2022:i:11:p:213-:d:967656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/10/11/213/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/10/11/213/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    2. Miguel Angel Ortiz Barrios & Fabio De Felice & Kevin Parra Negrete & Brandon Aleman Romero & Adriana Yaruro Arenas & Antonella Petrillo, 2016. "An AHP-Topsis Integrated Model for Selecting the Most Appropriate Tomography Equipment," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(04), pages 861-885, July.
    3. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    4. László Berényi & Zoltán Birkner & Nikolett Deutsch, 2020. "A Multidimensional Evaluation of Renewable and Nuclear Energy among Higher Education Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, February.
    5. Vivek Agrawal & Nitin Seth & Jitendra Kumar Dixit, 2022. "A combined AHP–TOPSIS–DEMATEL approach for evaluating success factors of e-service quality: an experience from Indian banking industry," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 715-747, September.
    6. Kim, Gyutai & Park, Chan S. & Yoon, K. Paul, 1997. "Identifying investment opportunities for advanced manufacturing systems with comparative-integrated performance measurement," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 23-33, May.
    7. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    8. Rađenović Žarko & Veselinović Ivana, 2017. "Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Method for the Assessment of Health Management Information Systems Efficiency," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 55(1), pages 121-142, March.
    9. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    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. Mohamed Mahmoud Fawzy & Ahmed Shawky Elsharkawy & Yasser Aly Khalifa & Abbas Atef hassan, 2024. "Contractor selection by using multi-criteria decision-making for Egyptian road maintenance," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 15(6), pages 2351-2365, June.
    2. Yao Yang & Jie Tang & Yucong Duan & Yunke Qu & Feihu Sun & Zhaoyang Li, 2023. "Study on the Relationship between Different Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Effluent Standards in Jilin Liaohe River Basin Based on the Coupled Model of AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Yihao Zhu & Chou Chen & Guodao Zhang & Zimin Lin & Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Ehsan Alvandi, 2023. "Investigation of West Lake Ecotourism Capabilities Using SWOT and TOPSIS Decision-Making Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    4. Heino Pesch & Louis Louw, 2023. "Exploring the Industrial Symbiosis Potential of Plant Factories during the Initial Establishment Phase," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-30, January.
    5. Kai Wang & Zhe Wang & Jun Deng & Yuanyuan Feng & Quanfang Li, 2022. "Study on the Evaluation of Emergency Management Capacity of Resilient Communities by the AHP-TOPSIS Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-14, December.

    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. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    2. Kai Wang & Zhe Wang & Jun Deng & Yuanyuan Feng & Quanfang Li, 2022. "Study on the Evaluation of Emergency Management Capacity of Resilient Communities by the AHP-TOPSIS Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    4. Misbah Anjum & Vernika Agarwal & P. K. Kapur & Sunil Kumar Khatri, 2020. "Two-phase methodology for prioritization and utility assessment of software vulnerabilities," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 11(2), pages 289-300, July.
    5. Pamucar, Dragan & Macura, Dragana & Tavana, Madjid & Božanić, Darko & Knežević, Nikola, 2022. "An integrated rough group multicriteria decision-making model for the ex-ante prioritization of infrastructure projects: The Serbian Railways case," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    6. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    7. Maghsoodi, Abtin Ijadi, 2023. "Cryptocurrency portfolio allocation using a novel hybrid and predictive big data decision support system," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    8. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    10. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    11. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Huang, Xianjin & Fu, Guole & Chen, Jia-Tsong & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "Evaluating the sustainability of urban renewal projects based on a model of hybrid multiple-attribute decision-making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    12. Łatuszyńska Anna, 2014. "Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Using Topsis Method For Interval Data In Research Into The Level Of Information Society Development," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 63-76, July.
    13. Prabhat Kumar & Puneet Tandon, 2019. "A paradigm for customer-driven product design approach using extended axiomatic design," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 589-603, February.
    14. Rihab Khemiri & Khaoula Elbedoui-Maktouf & Bernard Grabot & Belhassen Zouari, 2017. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for managing performance and risk in integrated procurement-production planning," Post-Print hal-01758604, HAL.
    15. Ustaoglu, E. & Sisman, S. & Aydınoglu, A.C., 2021. "Determining agricultural suitable land in peri-urban geography using GIS and Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    16. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    17. Mete, Suleyman & Yucesan, Melih & Gul, Muhammet & Ozceylan, Eren, 2023. "An integrated hybrid MCDM approach to evaluate countries’ COVID-19 risks," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    18. Peyman Mohammady & Amin Amid, 2011. "Integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy VIKOR model for supplier selection in an agile and modular virtual enterprise," Fuzzy Information and Engineering, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 411-431, December.
    19. Ridha, Hussein Mohammed & Gomes, Chandima & Hizam, Hashim & Ahmadipour, Masoud & Heidari, Ali Asghar & Chen, Huiling, 2021. "Multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decision-making methods for optimal design of standalone photovoltaic system: A comprehensive review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    20. Xiao-Kang Wang & Wen-Hui Hou & Chao Song & Min-Hui Deng & Yong-Yi Li & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2021. "BW-MaxEnt: A Novel MCDM Method for Limited Knowledge," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-17, July.

    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:jrisks:v:10:y:2022:i:11:p:213-:d:967656. 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.