Central European Journal of Operations Research

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 653–678 | Cite as

Integrating the DEMATEL with the analytic network process for effective decision-making

  • Nikola KadoićEmail author
  • Blaženka Divjak
  • Nina Begičević Ređep
Original Paper


One of the most advanced and complex multi-criteria decision-making methods is the analytic network process (ANP). This method supports modelling dependencies and feedback between elements in the network, while most other methods do not support this feature. For this reason, the ANP is one of the most appropriate methods for making decisions in the fields characterised by existing dependencies of higher-level elements on lower-level elements, such as the higher education field. However, the implementation of the ANP can be problematic, as it is characterised by highly complex and time-consuming processes, and users’ occasional misunderstandings of some ANP steps. Also, conducting the ANP requires a specific decision-making problem structure, which is a cluster-node structure in the form of a network. To assist with problem structuring and decrease some of the problematic ANP implementation characteristics, specific methods, such as the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) and interpretative structural modelling, have been chosen and integrated with the ANP. This paper focuses on the integration and analysis of the DEMATEL with the ANP. A literature review of how these two methods have been used together is given. Additionally, a new way of integrating these two methods (with two variants) is proposed and evaluated. According to the survey results, new ways of integrating the ANP and the DEMATEL decrease the complexity of the decision-making process, reduce the duration of the decision-making process, and increase users’ understanding of the method. The research methodology used in this paper is the design science research process.


Analytic network process DEMATEL Decision-making Dependencies Influences Feedback Structuring Weighted graph Interdependent matrices 



The work presented in this paper has been supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project, ‘Development of a methodological framework for strategic decision-making in higher education—a case of open and distance learning (ODL) implementation’. Project Number: IP-2014-09-7854. Details about the project can be found at the project website, This paper is a journal version of the paper, ‘Decision-Making with the Analytic Network Process’, which was presented at the SOR 2017 Conference.


  1. Attri R, Dev N, Sharma V (2013) Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: an overview. Res J Manag Sci 2(2):3–8. Google Scholar
  2. Begičević N (2008) Višekriterijski modeli odlučivanja u strateškom planiranju uvođenja e-učenja. University of Zagreb, Faculty of organization and informatics, Doktorski radGoogle Scholar
  3. Begicevic Redep N, Klacmer Calopa M, Bockaj J (2015) Decision making on human resource capacity in the higher education institutions. In: ICERI2015 proceedings. IATED, pp 2514–2524Google Scholar
  4. Chang B, Chang CW, Wu CH (2011) Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):1850–1858. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Creswell JW (2014) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. In: Knight V, Young J, Koscielak K (eds.) Research design qualitative quantitative and mixed methods approaches, 4th edn. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Divjak B (2017) Webpage od the project development of a methodological framework for strategic decision-making in higher education—a case of open and distance learning (ODL) implementation. Retrieved 7 January 2017, from
  7. Gölcük İ, Baykasoğlu A (2016) An analysis of DEMATEL approaches for criteria interaction handling within ANP. Expert Syst App006C 46:346–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hammond J, Keeney R, Raiffa H (1999) Smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  9. Harker PT, Vargas LG (1987) The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 33(11):1383–1403. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kadoić N, Begičević Ređep N, Divjak B (2016) E-learning decision making: methods and methodologies. In: Re-imagining learning scenarios, vol Conference. European Distance and E-Learning Network, Budapest, p 24Google Scholar
  11. Kadoić N, Begičević Ređep N, Divjak B (2017a) A new method for strategic decision-making in higher education. Central Eur J Oper Res 1:1. Google Scholar
  12. Kadoić N, Begičević Ređep N, Divjak B (2017b) Decision making with the analytic network process. In: Kljajić Borštnar M, Zadnik Stirn L, Žerovnik J, Drobne S (eds) SOR 17 proceedings. Slovenia Society Informatika—Section for Operational Research, Bled, Ljubljana, pp 180–186Google Scholar
  13. Kadoić N, Begičević Ređep N, Divjak B (2017c) Structuring e-learning multi-criteria decision making problems. In: Billjanović P (ed) Proceedings of 40th jubilee international convention, MIPRO 2017. Croatian Society for Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics—MIPRO, Opatija, pp 811–817. Google Scholar
  14. Kadoić N, Divjak B, Begičević Ređep N (2017d) Effective strategic decision making on open and distance education issues. In: Volungeviciene A, Szűcs A (eds) Diversity matters!. European Distance and E-Learning Network, Jönköping, pp 224–234Google Scholar
  15. Lee WS, Huang AY, Chang YY, Cheng CM (2011) Analysis of decision making factors for equity investment by DEMATEL and analytic network process. Expert Syst Appl 38(7):8375–8383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin CL, Hsieh MS, Tzeng GH (2010) Evaluating vehicle telematics system by using a novel MCDM techniques with dependence and feedback. Expert Syst Appl 37(10):6723–6736. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Michnik J (2013) Weighted influence non-linear gauge system (WINGS)-An analysis method for the systems of interrelated components. Eur J Oper Res 228(3):536–544. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ölçer MG (2013) DEMATEL ve ANP Yaklaşımları Kullanılarak Hesap Çizelgelerine Dayalı Bir Karar Destek Sistemi Geliştirilmesi. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü 167Google Scholar
  19. Ou Yang YP, Shieh HM, Tzeng GH (2013) A VIKOR technique based on DEMATEL and ANP for information security risk control assessment. Inf Sci 232:482–500. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Gengler CE, Rossi M, Hui W, Virtanen V, Bragge J (2006) The design science research process: a model for producing and presenting information systems research. In: Proceedings of design research in information systems and technology DESRIST’06, 24, pp 83–106.
  21. Saaty TL (2001) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process: the organization and prioritization of complexity (second and). RWS Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98Google Scholar
  23. Saaty TL, Cillo B (2008) A dictionary of complex decision using the analytic network process, the encyclicon, vol 2, 2nd edn. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  24. Shao J, Taisch M, Ortega M, Elisa D (2014) Application of the DEMATEL method to identify relations among barriers between green products and consumers. In: 17th European roundtable on sustainable consumption and production—ERSCP 2014, pp 1029–1040. Accessed 15 Dec 2018
  25. Shih-Hsi Y, Wang CC, Teng L-Y, Hsing YM, Yin Shih-Hsi (2012) Application of DEMATEL, ISM, and ANP for key success factor (KSF) complexity analysis in R&D alliance. Sci Res Essays 7(19):1872–1890. Google Scholar
  26. Springer (n.d.) Spearman rank correlation coefficient. In: The concise encyclopedia of statistics. Springer, New York, pp 502–505.
  27. Sumrit D, Anuntavoranich P (2013) Using DEMATEL method to analyze the causal relations on technological innovation capability evaluation factors in thai technology-based firms. Int Trans J Eng Manag Appl Sci Technol 4(2):81–103Google Scholar
  28. Tsai WH, Chou WC (2009) Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: a novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP. Expert Syst Appl 36(1):1444–1458. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lu MT, Lin SW (2010) Application of DEMATEL and ANP to investigate strategic drivers for green innovation. The 11th Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Conference, vol 7, pp 3–8.
  30. Vaishnavi V, Kuechler B (2004) Design science research in information systems overview of design science research. Ais. Google Scholar
  31. Vujanović D, Momčilović V, Bojović N, Papić V (2012) Evaluation of vehicle fleet maintenance management indicators by application of DEMATEL and ANP. Expert Syst Appl 39(12):10552–10563. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wu WW (2008) Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach. Expert Syst Appl 35(3):828–835. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yang JL, Tzeng GH (2011) An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):1417–1424. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yang Y, Shieh H, Leu J, Tzeng G-H (2008) A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. Int J Oper Res 5(3):160–168Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Organisation and InformaticsUniversity of ZagrebVaraždinCroatia

Personalised recommendations