Central European Journal of Operations Research

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 679–701 | Cite as

Application of the ANP to the prioritization of project stakeholders in the context of responsible research and innovation

  • Ivan Ligardo-HerreraEmail author
  • Tomás Gómez-Navarro
  • Hannia Gonzalez-Urango
Original Paper


This paper presents a methodology to assess the stakeholders’ influence in a research project within the context of responsible research and innovation. The methodology is based on a combination of the multicriteria decision making technique analytic network process and the key areas of responsible research. The method allows ranking and ordering the project’s stakeholders based on their influence upon its responsibility. The purpose of such an assessment is to help research teams to more efficiently devote their limited resources to stakeholder management. The procedure is applied to a case study of the Information and Communication Technology business sector. It is an ongoing project at an early phase of development. Influential stakeholders have been identified first, and have been further classified into groups based on their relative importance. The assessment of their influence has been based on up to 16 different criteria, mainly belonging to the framework of responsible research and innovation. In the case study, the most influential criterion was the Capability to promote public engagement, while Developers were found to be the stakeholders most contributing to the research project responsibility. However, as explained, this is a temporary situation, valid for the current project development situation. It may vary over time as criteria vary in weight and stakeholders vary in influence.


Stakeholders management Analytic network process (ANP) Responsible research and innovation (RRI) 



The authors would like to thank to our anonymous referees for their constructive comments and suggestions that helped us to improve the quality of the paper. Also, to the “Bolívar Gana con Ciencia” program from the Gobernación de Bolívar (Colombia) for the financial support. For the same reason, the authors are grateful to the Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigación for its support of the project Propuesta de Indicadores para Impulsar el Diseño de Una Política Orientada al Desarrollo de Investigación e Innovación Responsable en España (CSO2016-76828-R).


  1. Akbari N, Irawan CA, Jones DF, Menachof D (2017) A multi-criteria port suitability assessment for developments in the offshore wind industry. Renew Energy 102:118–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aragonés-Beltrán P, García-Melón M, Montesinos-Valera J (2017) How to assess stakeholders’ influence in project management? A proposal based on the analytic network process. Int J Proj Manag. Google Scholar
  3. Barrios Ortiz MA, De Felice F, Negrete KP et al (2016) An AHP-topsis integrated model for selecting the most appropriate tomography equipment. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 15:861–885. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhupendra KV, Sangle S (2017) What drives successful implementation of product stewardship strategy? The role of absorptive capability. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 24:186–198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botero C, Pereira C, Tosic M, Manjarrez G (2015) Design of an index for monitoring the environmental quality of tourist beaches from a holistic approach. Ocean Coast Manag 108:65–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brugha R (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan 15:239–246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burget M, Bardone E, Pedaste M (2017) Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: a literature review. Sci Eng Ethics. Google Scholar
  8. Caballero-Luque A, Aragonés-Beltrán P, García-Melón M, Dema-Pérez C (2010) Analysis of the alignment of Company goals to Web content using ANP. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 9:419–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Claudia K, Köppl A, Stagl S (2014) Towards an operational measurement of socio-ecological performance. Working Paper no 52Google Scholar
  10. Colin E, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. SAGE Publications Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahlsrud A (2006) How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 13:1–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Jong IM, Kupper F, Broerse J (2016) Inclusive deliberation and action in emerging RRI practices: the case of neuroimaging in security management. J Responsib Innov 3:26–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Lopez T (2001) Stakeholder management for conservation projects: a case study of Ream National Park, Cambodia. J Environ Manag 28:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Lotto R, Gazzola V, Gossenberg S et al (2016) Proposal to reduce natural risks: analytic network process to evaluate efficiency of city planning strategies. Springer, Cham, pp 650–664Google Scholar
  15. European Commission (2011) DG Research workshop on Responsible Research & Innovation in EuropeGoogle Scholar
  16. Geoghegan-Quinn M (2012) Responsible research and innovation. Europe’s ability to respond to societal challengesGoogle Scholar
  17. Görener A (2012) Comparing AHP and ANP: an application of strategic decisions making in a Manufacturing Company. Int J Bus Soc Sci 3:194–208Google Scholar
  18. Jaafari A, Najafi A, García-Melón M (2015) Decision-making for the selection of a best wood extraction method: an analytic network process approach. For Policy Econ 50:200–209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koops BJ (2015) The concepts, approaches, and applications of responsible innovations: an introduction. In: Koops BJ, Oosterlaken I, Romijn H, Swierstra T, van den Hoven J (eds) Responsible innovation 2: concepts, approaches, and applications. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  20. Ligardo-Herrera I, Gómez-Navarro T, Inigo EA, Blok V (2018) Addressing climate change in responsible research and innovation: recommendations for its operationalization. Sustainability 10:20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lubberink R, Blok V, van Ophem J, Omta O (2017) Lessons for responsible innovation in the business context: a systematic literature review of responsible, social and sustainable innovation practices. Sustainability. Google Scholar
  22. Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really. Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (2013) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peris J, García-Melón M, Gómez-Navarro T, Calabuig C (2013) Prioritizing local agenda 21 programmes using analytic network process: a Spanish case study. Sustain Dev 21:338–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramzan N, Degenkolbe S, Witt W (2008) Evaluating and improving environmental performance of HC’s recovery system: a case study of distillation unit. Chem Eng J 140:201–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosso M, Bottero M, Pomarico S et al (2014) Integrating multicriteria evaluation and stakeholders analysis for assessing hydropower projects. Energy Policy 67:870–881. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saaty TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces (Providence) 24:19–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saaty TL (2001) The analytic network process: decision making with dependence and feedback. RWS Publications, PittsburghCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saaty TL (2005) Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and its generalization to dependence and feedback, the Analytic Network Process (ANP), are methods of relative measurement of tangibles and intangibles. Being able to derive such measurements is essential for making goGoogle Scholar
  31. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1:83. Google Scholar
  32. Saaty TL, Peniwati K (2008) Group decision making : drawing out and reconciling differences. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  33. Sangle S, Babu PR (2007) Evaluating sustainability practices in terms of stakeholders’ satisfaction. Int J Bus Gov Ethics 3:56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shiau TA, Chuen-Yu JK (2016) Developing an indicator system for measuring the social sustainability of offshore wind power farms. Sustainability. Google Scholar
  35. Šijanec M, Žarnić R, Šelih J (2009) Multicriterial sustainability assessment of residential buildings. Technol Econ Dev Econ 15:612–630. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sipahi S, Timor M (2010) The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an overview of applications. Manag Decis 48:775–808. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sólnes J (2003) Environmental quality indexing of large industrial development alternatives using AHP. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23:283–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stahl BC, Coeckelbergh M (2016) Ethics of healthcare robotics: towards responsible research and innovation. Rob Auton Syst 86:152–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42:1568–1580. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strand R, Spaapen J, Bauer MW et al (2015) Indicators for promoting and monitoring responsible research and innovation report from the expert group on policy indicatorsGoogle Scholar
  41. Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169:1–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van de Poel I, Asveld L, Flipse S et al (2017) Company strategies for responsible research and innovation (RRI): a conceptual model. Sustainability 9:2045. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Von Schomberg R (2011) Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. Tech abschätzen lehren Bild transdisziplinärer Methoden. Google Scholar
  44. Wu X, Cui P (2016) A study of the time-space evolution characteristics of urban-rural integration development in a mountainous area based on ESDA-GIS: the case of the Qinling-Daba mountains in China. Sustainability 8:1085. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yüksel I, Dagdeviren M (2007) Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis—a case study for a textile firm. Inf Sci (NY) 177:3364–3382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Energy Engineering IIEUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Facultad de IngenieríasUniversidad Simón BolívarBarranquillaColombia
  3. 3.Ingenio (CSIC-UPV)Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations