Setting research priorities: An example from agriculture using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Research Evaluation

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 201-210

  Hartwich, Frank ^a   Janssen, Willem ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOHENHEIM   (Germany)

^b Institutional Devmt Governance P   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0012481782     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154400781777250     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. M M Anders and R A E Müller (1995), 'Managing communication and research task perceptions in interdisciplinary crops research', Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 34, pages 53-69.
2. C E Arrington, R E Jensen and M Tokutani (1982), 'Scaling of corporate multivariate performance criteria: subjective composition versus the Analytic Hierarchy Process', Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 1, pages 95-123.
3. D Brinkmeyer and R A E Müller (1994), 'Entscheidungsünterstützung mit dem AHP', Zeitschrift für Agrarinformatik. 5/94.
4. C A Falconi (1993), 'Economic evaluation', in D Horton et al (editors), Monitoring and Evaluating Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook (ISNAR & CABI, University Press, Cambridge).
5. E Forman and K Peniwati (1996), Aggregating Individual Judgments and Priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP, Vancouver), July 12-15.
6. G Haedrich, A Kuß and E Keilkamp (1986), 'Der Analytic Hierarchy Process', WiST; 3, pages 120-126.
7. P T Harker (1998), 'The art and science of decision making: the Analytic Hierarchy Process', in B Golden, E Wasil and P Harker (editors), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies (Springer, New York).
8. F Hartwich and G Meijerink (1999), New Views on the Generation of Agricultural Knowledge: Revising the Systems Approach to National Agricultural Research (ISNAR Discussion Paper, The Hague), forthcoming.
9. F Hartwich and M von Oppen (2000), The Use of DEA in Performance Evaluation of Agricultural Research: Results from Low-input Low-output Research Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (Paper accepted for the International DEA Symposium: Measurement and Improvement of Productivity in the 21 st Century, 3-5 July 2000, Brisbane, Australia).
10. K R E Huizingh (1993), 'Analytic Hierarchy Process: een methode om appels met peren te vergelijken', Tijdschrift voor Marketing, March.
11. V M Karbhari (1994), 'The Analytic Hierarchy Process: a viable decision tool for composite materials?', International Journal of Technology Management, 9(1).
12. F Krawiec (1984), 'Evaluating and selecting research projects by scoring', Research Management, 2.
13. G Locket, B Hetherington, P Yallup, M Stratford and B Cox (1986), 'Modelling a research portfolio using AHP: a group decision process', Research Management, 16(2).
14. B Mills and M Kamau (1998), 'Methods for prioritizing research options', in B Mills (editor), Agricultural Research Priority Setting: Information Investments for Improved Use of Resources (ISNAR, The Hague).
15. T L Saaty (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process (McGraw-Hill, New York).
16. T L Saaty (1989), 'Group decision making and the AHP', in B L Golan, E A Wasil and P T Harker (editors), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies (Springer Verlag, Germany).
17. T L Saaty (1990), 'How to make a decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process', European Journal of Operational Research, 48.
18. B Schoner, W Wedley and W C Choo (1993), 'A unified approach to AHP with linking pins', European Journal of Operational Research, 64, pages 384-392.