- -

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

RiuNet: Institutional repository of the Polithecnic University of Valencia

Share/Send to

Cited by

Statistics

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

Show simple item record

Files in this item

dc.contributor.author Ligardo-Herrera, Iván es_ES
dc.contributor.author Gómez-Navarro, Tomás es_ES
dc.contributor.author Gonzalez-Urango, Hannia es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2019-05-08T20:31:15Z
dc.date.available 2019-05-08T20:31:15Z
dc.date.issued 2018 es_ES
dc.identifier.issn 1435-246X es_ES
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/120137
dc.description.abstract [EN] 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. es_ES
dc.description.sponsorship 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)
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Springer-Verlag es_ES
dc.relation AEI/CSO2016-76828-R es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof Central European Journal of Operations Research es_ES
dc.rights Reserva de todos los derechos es_ES
dc.subject Stakeholders management es_ES
dc.subject Analytic network process (ANP) es_ES
dc.subject Responsible research and innovation (RRI) es_ES
dc.subject.classification PROYECTOS DE INGENIERIA es_ES
dc.title Application of the ANP to the prioritization of project stakeholders in the context of responsible research and innovation es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.1007/s10100-018-0573-4 es_ES
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.date.embargoEndDate 2019-08-01 es_ES
dc.contributor.affiliation Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Proyectos de Ingeniería - Departament de Projectes d'Enginyeria es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation Ligardo-Herrera, I.; Gómez-Navarro, T.; Gonzalez-Urango, H. (2018). Application of the ANP to the prioritization of project stakeholders in the context of responsible research and innovation. Central European Journal of Operations Research. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-018-0573-4 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod S es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-018-0573-4 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 1 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 23 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.relation.pasarela 367128 es_ES
dc.contributor.funder Agencia Estatal de Investigación es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.10.035 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.001 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021962201640006X es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1394 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.07.017 es_ES
dc.relation.references Brugha R (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan 15:239–246. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.239 es_ES
dc.relation.references Burget M, Bardone E, Pedaste M (2017) Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: a literature review. Sci Eng Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622010003889 es_ES
dc.relation.references Claudia K, Köppl A, Stagl S (2014) Towards an operational measurement of socio-ecological performance. Working Paper no 52 es_ES
dc.relation.references Colin E, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. SAGE Publications Ltd, London es_ES
dc.relation.references Dahlsrud A (2006) How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 13:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2015.1137752 es_ES
dc.relation.references De Lopez T (2001) Stakeholder management for conservation projects: a case study of Ream National Park, Cambodia. J Environ Manag 28:47–60 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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 650–664 es_ES
dc.relation.references European Commission (2011) DG Research workshop on Responsible Research & Innovation in Europe es_ES
dc.relation.references Geoghegan-Quinn M (2012) Responsible research and innovation. Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges es_ES
dc.relation.references Görener A (2012) Comparing AHP and ANP: an application of strategic decisions making in a Manufacturing Company. Int J Bus Soc Sci 3:194–208 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.010 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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 1–15 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062012 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050721 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022105 es_ES
dc.relation.references Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (2013) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, New York es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.514 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2007.09.042 es_ES
dc.relation.references Rosso M, Bottero M, Pomarico S et al (2014) Integrating multicriteria evaluation and stakeholders analysis for assessing hydropower projects. Energy Policy 67:870–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.007 es_ES
dc.relation.references Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I es_ES
dc.relation.references Saaty TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces (Providence) 24:19–43 es_ES
dc.relation.references Saaty TL (2001) The analytic network process: decision making with dependence and feedback. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh es_ES
dc.relation.references 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 go es_ES
dc.relation.references Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1:83. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590 es_ES
dc.relation.references Saaty TL, Peniwati K (2008) Group decision making : drawing out and reconciling differences. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh es_ES
dc.relation.references Sangle S, Babu PR (2007) Evaluating sustainability practices in terms of stakeholders’ satisfaction. Int J Bus Gov Ethics 3:56. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2007.011934 es_ES
dc.relation.references Shiau TA, Chuen-Yu JK (2016) Developing an indicator system for measuring the social sustainability of offshore wind power farms. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050470 es_ES
dc.relation.references Šijanec M, Žarnić R, Šelih J (2009) Multicriterial sustainability assessment of residential buildings. Technol Econ Dev Econ 15:612–630. https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.612-630 es_ES
dc.relation.references Sipahi S, Timor M (2010) The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an overview of applications. Manag Decis 48:775–808. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011043920 es_ES
dc.relation.references Sólnes J (2003) Environmental quality indexing of large industrial development alternatives using AHP. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23:283–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00004-0 es_ES
dc.relation.references Stahl BC, Coeckelbergh M (2016) Ethics of healthcare robotics: towards responsible research and innovation. Rob Auton Syst 86:152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.018 es_ES
dc.relation.references Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42:1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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 indicators es_ES
dc.relation.references Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112045 es_ES
dc.relation.references Von Schomberg R (2011) Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. Tech abschätzen lehren Bild transdisziplinärer Methoden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93468-6_2 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111085 es_ES
dc.relation.references 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.01.001 es_ES


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record