Published

2025-08-29

Integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Preference Ranking Method, and Stakeholder Analysis: A Methodological Guide for Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations

Integración del proceso analítico jerárquico, el método de preferencia para la toma de decisiones y el análisis de grupos de interés: una guía metodológica para la toma de decisiones estratégicas en organizaciones

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15446/ing.investig.114973

Keywords:

multicriteria decision-making, analytical hierarchy process, preference ranking method (Promethee), stakeholder analysis, alternatives evaluation (en)
toma de decisiones multicriterio, proceso analítico jerárquico, método de preferencia para la toma de decisiones (Promethee), análisis de stakeholders, evaluación de alternativas (es)

Downloads

Authors

Contemporary organizational management entails a growing complexity in strategic decision-making processes, underscoring the need to have effective tools that support organizational sustainability in making complex decisions that consider multiple criteria. Said tools must follow a multidimensional approach that ensures a comprehensive evaluation of strategic options, considering criterion weighting, alternatives evaluation, and stakeholder influence. This work seeks to propose an integrated methodological guide for strategic decision-making in organizations, which combines the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), the Promethee II method, and stakeholder analysis, complemented by a PESTEL feasibility analysis to validate execution possibilities. The methodology described herein leverages the mathematical rigor of the AHP to determine the relative importance of the criteria, and it employs Promethee II for a detailed alternatives analysis. In addition, stakeholder analysis facilitates the alignment of strategic decisions with the expectations of all the relevant groups of interest, resulting in a robust and adaptable tool that facilitates a more informed and strategically aligned decision-making. The results obtained demonstrate that integrating these techniques significantly improves the clarity and objectivity of the decision-making process. It is concluded that our structured method can be adapted to a diversity of organizational contexts, which suggests its broad potential for application in strategic management processes, even in small and medium enterprises.

La gestión organizacional contemporánea plantea una creciente complejidad en los procesos de decisión estratégica, lo que resalta la necesidad de contar con herramientas efectivas que apoyen la sostenibilidad de la organización en la toma de decisiones complejas que consideran múltiples criterios. Dichas herramientas deben tener un enfoque multidimensional que asegure una evaluación integral de opciones estratégicas, considerando la ponderación de criterios, la evaluación de alternativas y la influencia de los stakeholders. Este trabajo busca proponer una guía metodológica integrada para la toma de decisiones estratégicas en organizaciones, donde se combinan el proceso analítico jerárquico (AHP), el método Promethee II y el análisis de stakeholders, complementados por un análisis de viabilidad PESTEL para validar las posibilidades de ejecución. La metodología aquí descrita aprovecha el rigor matemático del AHP para determinar la importancia relativa de los criterios y emplea Promethee II para el análisis detallado de alternativas. Adicionalmente, el análisis de stakeholders facilita la alineación de las decisiones estratégicas con las expectativas de todos los grupos de interés relevantes, lo que produce una herramienta robusta y adaptable que facilita decisiones más informadas y estratégicamente alineadas. Los resultados obtenidos demuestran que la integración de estas técnicas mejora significativamente la claridad y la objetividad del proceso de toma de decisiones. Se concluye que el método estructurado puede adaptarse a diversos contextos organizacionales, sugiriendo su amplio potencial de aplicación en procesos de gestión estratégica incluso para pequeñas y medianas empresas.

References

[1] T. L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priori-ty setting, resource allocation. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1980. [Online]. Available: https://archive.org/details/analytichierarch0000saat

[2] J. P. Brans and B. Mareschal, "The PROMETHEE VI proce-dure: How to differentiate hard from soft multicriteria prob-lems," J. Decision Syst., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 213-223, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.1995.10511652 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.1995.10511652

[3] S. García-Orozco et al., “Using multi-criteria decision mak-ing in Quality Function Deployment for selecting optimal lo-cations for offshore wind farms,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 18, art. 6533, 2023. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/18/6533 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en16186533

[4] A. M. Alhumaid, A. H. Aleisa, B. T. Al-Marshad, A. U. A. Al-Ruwaih, S. Al-Harbi, and A. A. Al-Ghamdi, "Design evalua-tion for urban drainage systems," Water, vol. 10, no. 5, art. 581, 2018. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/5/581 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/w10050581

[5] R. E. Freeman, Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA, USA: Pitman, 1984. [Online]. Availa-ble: cambridge.org/core/books/strategic-management/E3CC2E2CE01497062D7603B7A8B9337F

[6] M. P. Basílio, V. Pereira, H. G. Costa, M. Santos, and A. Ghosh, "A systematic review of the applications of multi-criteria decision aid methods (1977–2022)," Electronics, vol. 11, no. 11, art. 1720, 2022. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/11/11/1720 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11111720

[7] H.-Q. Nguyen, V.-T. Nguyen, D.-P. Phan, Q.-H. Tran, and N.-P. Vu, "Multi-criteria decision making in the PMEDM process by using MARCOS, TOPSIS, and MAIRCA methods," App. Sci., vol. 12, no. 8, art. 3720, 2022. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/8/3720 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app12083720

[8] A. M. Qureshi and A. Rachid, "Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making techniques for outdoor heat stress mitigation," App. Sci., vol. 12, no. 23, art. 12308, 2022. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/23/12308 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app122312308

[9] S. Faizi, W. Sałabun, T. Rashid, S. Zafar, and J. Wątróbski, "Intuitionistic fuzzy sets in multi-criteria group decision making problems using the characteristic objects method," Sym-metry, vol. 12, no. 9, art. 1382, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/12/9/1382 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091382

[10] V. Yepes, "Tag: Saaty," Blog de Víctor Yepes. [Online]. Available: https://victoryepes.blogs.upv.es/tag/saaty

[11] G. Fattoruso, S. Scognamiglio, and A. Violi, “A new dy-namic and perspective parsimonious AHP model for improv-ing industrial frameworks,” Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 17, art. 3138, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10173138 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math10173138

[12] S. Moslem, “A novel parsimonious spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,” Eng. App. Art. Intell., vol. 128, art. 107447, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107447 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107447

[13] J. Ortega, S. Moslem, and D. Esztergár-Kiss, “An integrated approach of the AHP and spherical fuzzy sets for analyzing a park-and-ride facility location problem,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 55316–55324, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3281865 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3281865

[14] H. Taherdoost and M. Madanchian, "Using PROMETHEE method for multi-criteria decision making: Applications and procedures," Iris J. Econ. Busi. Manage., vol. 1, no. 1, art. 000502, 2023. https://irispublishers.com/ijebm/pdf/IJEBM.MS.ID.000502.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.33552/IJEBM.2023.01.000502

[15] N. Hernández and M. Vélez, "Sensitivity analysis of PRO-METHEE II for the evaluation of environmental websites," App. Sci., vol. 11, no. 19, art. 9215, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11199215 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11199215

[16] M. Behzadian, A. Kazemzadh, D. Albadvi, and M. Agh-dasi, "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 200, pp. 198–215, 2010. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221709010092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021

[17] J.-P. Brans and B. Mareschal, "PROMETHEE methods," in Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys, J. Figueira, S. Greco, and M. Ehrgott, Eds. London, UK: Spring-er, 2005, pp. 163-186. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5

[18] Mind Tools, "Stakeholder analysis: Winning support for your projects," MindTools.com. [Online]. Available: https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_07.htm

[19] "Matriz de interesados poder-interés," ResearchGate. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figura-2-Matriz-de-interesados-poder-interes_fig1_320993049

[20] ProjectManager, "Stakeholder management strategies." [Online]. Available: https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/stakeholder-management

[21] O. Y. Akbulut, “Analysis of the corporate financial perfor-mance based on Grey PSI and Grey MARCOS model in Turk-ish insurance sector,” Knowl. Decis. Syst. App., vol. 1, pp. 57–69, 2025. https://doi.org/10.59543/kadsa.v1i.13623 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59543/kadsa.v1i.13623

[22] H. A. Dağıstanlı, “Weapon system selection for capabil-ity based defense planning using lanchester models inte-grated with fuzzy MCDM in computer assisted military exper-iment,” Knowl. Decis. Syst. Appl., vol. 1, pp. 11–23, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59543/kadsa.v1i.13601

[23] C. Zhang, S. Kwon, J. Oh, and K. Park, "An integrated AHP-PROMETHEE II ranking method to evaluate the resilience of sewer networks considering urban flood and ground col-lapse risks," Water Sci. Technol., vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 1438–1453, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2023.067 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2023.067

[24] H. Nasiri, A. D. Boloorani, and H. A. F. Sabokbar, “Deter-mining the most suitable areas for artificial groundwater re-charge via an integrated PROMETHEE II AHP approach,” En-viron. Monit. Assess., vol. 185, pp. 707–718, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2586-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2586-0

[25] P. Trivedi, J. Shah, S. Moslem, and F. Pilla, "An application of the hybrid AHP-PROMETHEE approach to evaluate the severity of the factors influencing road accidents," Heliyon, vol. 9, art. e21187, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21187 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21187

[26] E. Forman and K. Peniwati, "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 165-169, Jan. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0

[27] J.-J. Wang, M.-M. Wang, F. Liu, and H. Chen, "Multistake-holder strategic third-party logistics provider selection," Trans. J., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 312-338, 2015. https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.54.3.0312 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.54.3.0312

[28] M. A. M. Isa, N. S. Saharudin, N. B. Anuar, and N. F. Ma-had, “The application of AHP PROMETHEE II for supplier se-lection,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1988, no. 1, art. 012062, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1988/1/012062 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1988/1/012062

[29] A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, K. MD Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan, and A. Valipour, “Multiple criteria decision making tech-niques and their applications – A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014,” Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraz., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 516–571, 2015. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139

[30] F. Manzoor, L. Wei, and N. Sahito, "The role of SMEs in rural development: Access of SMEs to finance as a media-tor," PLOS ONE, vol. 16, no. 3, art. e0247598, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247598 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247598

[31] M. Dini and G. Stumpo, Coord., Mipymes en América Latina: un frágil desempeño y nuevos desafíos para las polí-ticas de fomento. Santiago, Chile: CEPAL, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/44148-mipymes-america-latina-un-fragil-desempeno-nuevos-desafios-politicas-fomento

[32] T. L. Saaty, "Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process," Int. J. Serv. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 83–98, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590

[33] V. Belton and T. J. Gear, "On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies," Omega, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 228–230, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(83)90047-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(83)90047-6

[34] J. P. Brans and P. Vincke, "A preference ranking organiza-tion method: The PROMETHEE method for MCDM," Manage. Sci., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 647–656, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647

[35] H. B. Slama, R. Gaha, M. Tlija, S. Chatti, and A. Benama-ra, "Proposal of a combined AHP-PROMETHEE decision sup-port tool for selecting sustainable machining process based on toolpath strategy and manufacturing parameters," Sus-tainability, vol. 15, no. 24, art. 16861, 2023. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16861 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416861

[36] M. Marttunen, J. Lienert, and V. Belton, "Structuring prob-lems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in practice," Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 263, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2017. [Online]. Availa-ble: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.041 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.041

How to Cite

APA

Bolaños Cano, S., Coy Mejía, J. A. & Peña Orozco, D. L. (2025). Integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Preference Ranking Method, and Stakeholder Analysis: A Methodological Guide for Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations. Ingeniería e Investigación, 45(2), e114973. https://doi.org/10.15446/ing.investig.114973

ACM

[1]
Bolaños Cano, S., Coy Mejía, J.A. and Peña Orozco, D.L. 2025. Integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Preference Ranking Method, and Stakeholder Analysis: A Methodological Guide for Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations. Ingeniería e Investigación. 45, 2 (Aug. 2025), e114973. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15446/ing.investig.114973.

ACS

(1)
Bolaños Cano, S.; Coy Mejía, J. A.; Peña Orozco, D. L. Integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Preference Ranking Method, and Stakeholder Analysis: A Methodological Guide for Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations. Ing. Inv. 2025, 45, e114973.

ABNT

BOLAÑOS CANO, S.; COY MEJÍA, J. A.; PEÑA OROZCO, D. L. Integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Preference Ranking Method, and Stakeholder Analysis: A Methodological Guide for Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations. Ingeniería e Investigación, [S. l.], v. 45, n. 2, p. e114973, 2025. DOI: 10.15446/ing.investig.114973. Disponível em: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/ingeinv/article/view/114973. Acesso em: 11 nov. 2025.

Chicago

Bolaños Cano, Sebastian, John Alexander Coy Mejía, and Diego León Peña Orozco. 2025. “Integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Preference Ranking Method, and Stakeholder Analysis: A Methodological Guide for Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations”. Ingeniería E Investigación 45 (2):e114973. https://doi.org/10.15446/ing.investig.114973.

Harvard

Bolaños Cano, S., Coy Mejía, J. A. and Peña Orozco, D. L. (2025) “Integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Preference Ranking Method, and Stakeholder Analysis: A Methodological Guide for Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations”, Ingeniería e Investigación, 45(2), p. e114973. doi: 10.15446/ing.investig.114973.

IEEE

[1]
S. Bolaños Cano, J. A. Coy Mejía, and D. L. Peña Orozco, “Integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Preference Ranking Method, and Stakeholder Analysis: A Methodological Guide for Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations”, Ing. Inv., vol. 45, no. 2, p. e114973, Aug. 2025.

MLA

Bolaños Cano, S., J. A. Coy Mejía, and D. L. Peña Orozco. “Integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Preference Ranking Method, and Stakeholder Analysis: A Methodological Guide for Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations”. Ingeniería e Investigación, vol. 45, no. 2, Aug. 2025, p. e114973, doi:10.15446/ing.investig.114973.

Turabian

Bolaños Cano, Sebastian, John Alexander Coy Mejía, and Diego León Peña Orozco. “Integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Preference Ranking Method, and Stakeholder Analysis: A Methodological Guide for Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations”. Ingeniería e Investigación 45, no. 2 (August 1, 2025): e114973. Accessed November 11, 2025. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/ingeinv/article/view/114973.

Vancouver

1.
Bolaños Cano S, Coy Mejía JA, Peña Orozco DL. Integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Preference Ranking Method, and Stakeholder Analysis: A Methodological Guide for Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations. Ing. Inv. [Internet]. 2025 Aug. 1 [cited 2025 Nov. 11];45(2):e114973. Available from: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/ingeinv/article/view/114973

Download Citation

CrossRef Cited-by

CrossRef citations0

Dimensions

PlumX

Article abstract page views

246

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Sebastian Bolaños Cano, John Alexander Coy Mejía, Diego León Peña Orozco

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The authors or holders of the copyright for each article hereby confer exclusive, limited and free authorization on the Universidad Nacional de Colombia's journal Ingeniería e Investigación concerning the aforementioned article which, once it has been evaluated and approved, will be submitted for publication, in line with the following items:

1.    The version which has been corrected according to the evaluators' suggestions will be remitted and it will be made clear whether the aforementioned article is an unedited document regarding which the rights to be authorized are held and total responsibility will be assumed by the authors for the content of the work being submitted to Ingeniería e Investigación, the Universidad Nacional de Colombia and third-parties;

2.    The authorization conferred on the journal will come into force from the date on which it is included in the respective volume and issue of Ingeniería e Investigación in the Open Journal Systems and on the journal's main page (https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/ingeinv), as well as in different databases and indices in which the publication is indexed;

3.    The authors authorize the Universidad Nacional de Colombia's journal Ingeniería e Investigación to publish the document in whatever required format (printed, digital, electronic or whatsoever known or yet to be discovered form) and authorize Ingeniería e Investigación to include the work in any indices and/or search engines deemed necessary for promoting its diffusion;

4.    The authors accept that such authorization is given free of charge and they, therefore, waive any right to receive remuneration from the publication, distribution, public communication and any use whatsoever referred to in the terms of this authorization.