using analytical network process (anp) …journal-archieves27.webs.com/603-618.pdf · key words:...

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

603

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

USING ANALYTICAL NETWORK PROCESS (ANP) METHOD TO PRIORITIZE STRATEGIES RESULTED FROM SWOT MATRIX

CASE STUDY: NEDA SAMAK ASHENA COMPANY

Professor Mohammadreza Shojaei, Sanaz Abbaszade, Seyede Somayeh Aghaei Ershad Damavand University, Jandarmery st., North Felestin st., Enghelab st., Tehran, Iran

Corresponding author:

Sanaz Abbaszade

Address: Ershad Damavand University, Jandarmery st., North Felestin st., Enghelab st., Tehran, Iran

Abstract

SWOT matrix is one the common tools which managers use for decision making in various situations. Although

SWOT matrix provides a set of alternatives, one of its main constraints is inability to suggest the final solution. So,

it seems essential to apply other decision making techniques which enable managers to prioritize strategies

considering various decision making factors and those of SWOT matrix. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and

Analytical Network Process (ANP) are suitable methods to be used with SWOT matrix. Considering factors and

criteria dependent make ANP more appropriate to be used in the process of selecting the best solution than AHP.

Key words: Strategy, SWOT Matrix, IE Matrix, Analytical Network Process (ANP), Analytic hierarchy process

(AHP)

1. Introduction

Nowadays organizations face increased environmental complexities which require effective use of strategic planning

to define and implement strategies.

In addition to increasing global competition, importance of customer relationship management, and diversity of

customers and products, Iranian companies feels the necessity of strategic planning more than before due to

international sanctions. Since environmental analysis is an essential task in strategic planning, internal and external

factors influencing studied company in this research are considered carefully in order to be able to identify and

prioritize best strategies.

The company which is studied in this work is ‘Neda Samak Ashena Co.’. It's in medical equipments industry

focusing on exclusive import and distribution of acoustic and FM systems of Swiss company ‘Phonak’. Establishing

in 2002, Ashena Co. is a leading company in provision of hearing services in Iran. Having an entrepreneurship

approach in managing its business, increasing Phonak brand's market share in Iran from less than 1% in 2004 to 20-

25% in 2008, increasing sales more than to 32 times, and reaching the second market place for its acoustic product

in Iran, reflect acquiring an strategic approach in this company and are among the main reasons that we decided to

work on it in this research.

Also, with the aim of increasing the range of it hearing products, Ashena Co. has gotten representative of the

following brands in Iran: exclusive representative of autoplastic products of Dreve Co. (German company producing

laboratory acoustic and dental equipments), exclusive representative of ear, nose and throat units of MedStar which

is a South Korean company, and non-exclusive representative of battery products of PowerOne Co. (German

company producing acoustic batteries). Its great success in getting representation of internationally successful

brands, being customer-oriented, and providing customized sales and after sales services, are other reasons of

selecting Ashena Co. for this case study research.

ijcrb.webs.com



604

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

2. Research goals:

The main goal of this research is defining an appropriate strategy for Ashena Co. using IE matrix and AHP method.

So, after application of SWOT matrix, strategies are prioritized using ANP method.

3. Literature review

Strategy The strategy of the organization is a pattern for actions that done by employees’ in long-term (Ralph,

2007) is defined as an operational plan which is used to coordinate and organize activities resulting to achieving

organization's goal. In fact, strategic planning is not the main goal in itself but it's a set of concepts used to assist

managers in their decision makings. Strategic planning is worthwhile when it helps managers to think and act

strategically.

Analytical Network Process (ANP) The Analytical Network Process (ANP) is a general theory of relative

measurement used to drive composite priority ratio scales from individual ratio scales that represent relative

measurement of the influence of elements that interact with respect to control criteria (L. Saaty, Fundamentals of

Analytical Network Process, 1999). ANP is one of the multivariate decision making methods. It's useful when

decision makers should consider multiple factors and choices.

SWOT Matrix is one of the well-known techniques in strategic management which is used to adapt internal

strengths and weaknesses with external opportunities and threats. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

(SWOT) analysis is a commonly used tool which examines strengths and weaknesses (internal factors) of a

company or industry together with opportunities and threats (external factors) of the marketplace environment.

SWOT analysis provides the basic outline in which to perform analysis of decision situations (Görener, Toker, &

Uluçay, 2012).

IE Matrix The Internal-External (IE) matrix is another strategic management tool used to analyze working

conditions and strategic position of a business. The Internal External Matrix or short IE matrix is based on an

analysis of internal and external business factors which are combined into one suggestive model. The IE matrix is a

continuation of the EFE matrix and IFE matrix models (Maxi-pedia). In summarize way it can be defined as the

strategic management tool which is used to analyze the current position of the divisions and suggest the strategies

for the future for the better results (scribd).

4. Methodology:

This research is descriptive and falls in the category of case study. Data and information gathering was conducted

through R&D department, experts and managers in the company.

5. To Analyze:

i. Internal forces:

Main internal forces are:

1. Marketing

2. Finance

3. Accounting

4. Senior management

5. IT system

6. Production (operations)

ii. Internal Factors Evaluation (IFE):

Internal factors matrix can be drawn by strategically analyzing organization's internal factors. In this matrix, main

strengths and weaknesses of each organizational function are determined and analyzed. Also this matrix suggests

solutions to identify and analyze relationships between determined functions. In order to prepare this matrix, subject

http://www.maxi-pedia.com/EFE+matrix+external

http://www.maxi-pedia.com/IFE+EFE+matrix+internal+factor+evaluation

ijcrb.webs.com



605

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

judgments are necessary, reminding the fact that scientific methods are not the only comprehensive and reliable

research approaches. In order to construct internal factors matrix, these steps should be followed:

1. Listing identified internal factors:

10 – 20 factors which include company's strengths and weaknesses should be identified. First strengths and then

weaknesses are listed.

2. Giving weight to the factors:

Weights start from 0 (no importance) to 1 (very important). Weight of each factor indicates relative importance of

that factor in success of the company in its industry. Regardless of high weights should be allocated to those

factors which have greatest impact on organization's performance. It should be mentioned that total sum of the all

weight must equate 1.

3. Ranking factors:

Rankings are from 1 to 4. Rank 1 indicates fundamental weakness, rank 2 indicates relative weakness, rank 3

indicates relative strength and rank 4 indicates fundamental strength of determined internal factors. Scores are

based on company's performance and weights are based on the industry.

4. Calculation of weight of each factor multiple in rank of that factor.

5. Calculation of total sum of company's scores in step 4.

iii. External forces:

In this research, external forces can be classified into 5 categories:

1. Economic forces

2. Social, cultural, ecological and environmental forces

3. Political, governmental and regulatory forces

4. Technological forces

5. Competitive forces

iv. External Factors Evaluation (EFE):

In order to construct external factor evaluation matrix, these 5 steps should be followed:

a. Listing identified external factors:

10 – 20 factors which provide opportunities or threaten company's activities should be identified.

First opportunities and then threats are listed.

b. Giving weight to the factors:

Weights start from 0 (no importance) to 1 (very important). Relative importance of each factor

depends on success of company in related industry. Usually factors which are related to

opportunities get higher weights (in compare with those related threatening factors), but if there is

any powerful threatening factor, it should be given high weight as well. Weights of the factors are

determined after reviewing successful and/or unsuccessful competitors, group discussions in

company and reaching consensus for weight of each factor. It should be mentioned that total sum

of the all weight must equate 1.

ijcrb.webs.com



606

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

c. Ranking factors:

Rankings are from 1 to 4 and allocate to each factor according to the effectiveness of company's

current strategies relative to each given factor. Rank 4 indicates good reaction, rank 3 indicates

above average reaction, rank 2 indicates below average reaction and rank 1 indicates weak

reaction. These rankings are determined according to the effectiveness of strategies of company

and considering weights of the factors in step 2.

d. Calculation of weight of each factor multiple in rank of that factor.

e. Calculation of total sum of company's scores in step 4.

v. Research phases

Identification of opportunities, threats, strengths and weaknesses (See table 1 Internal Factors Evaluation (IFE) and

table 2 External Factors Evaluation (EFE))

vi. Data analysis

Regardless of the number of the factors which are included in internal and external factors matrix, total sum of final

scores is between 1 and 4, and their average is 2.5. If final score of organization is below 2.5, it means that

organization has weakness regarding internal and external factors. If final score of organization is above 2.5, it

means that organization has strength regarding internal and external factors. (See Fig. 1 IE diagram)

By drawing IE diagram, Ashena Co. is position in aggressive strategy section. Following we will discuss various

solutions and provide some recommendations based on this finding. (See Table 3 SWOT Matrix)

vii. Prioritizing strategies using ANP:

1. Decision making hierarchy tree: (See Fig. 2 Decision making hierarchy tree) 2. Using Saaty’s 9 Fundamental scales for prioritization in ANP: (See Table 4

Saaty’s 9 Fundamental scales)

3. Criteria paired comparison matrix: ( See Table 5 Criteria paired comparison

Matrix)

Special vector is used in order to calculate the weights (W).

4. Paired comparison of interdependencies matrix: (See Table 6 to 11 criteria

paired comparison matrix considering their interdependencies and C1/2/3/4/5/6 as

control criterion)

5. Special vectors matrix for paired comparison of interdependencies of criteria:

(See Table 12 Special vectors matrix for paired comparison of interdependencies

of criteria)

6. Paired comparison of strategies' priority related to criteria: (See Table 13 to 18

paired comparison of strategies' priority related to C1/2/3/4/5/6 criterion

7. Special vectors' paired comparison matrix (Eij): (See Table 19 Special vectors'

paired comparison matrix)

8. Building weighted super matrix: (See Table 20 weighted super matrix and Table

21 WANP matrix)

ijcrb.webs.com



607

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

viii. Selecting the best strategy:

In order to choose the best strategy, the equation suggested by Lin et al is used (Zebardast, 2010):

In this equation:

Di: desirability of strategy index

Wj: relative importance of j according to the numbers in WANP matrix

Eij: score of strategy i from criteria j in Eij matrix

Finally, the alternative which gets the highest final score from equation (1) is selected as the best solution. (See

Table 22 Calculating desirability index (Di) of selected strategies and determining their ranks)

6. Results:

This paper reviews Analytical Network Process (ANP) and its application in mangers decision making about

choosing best strategies for their organizations. The reason for choosing ANP instead of AHP was that, since AHP

assumes independency of factors in hierarchical structure of decision making, it's not applicable in situations in

which there are dependency relationships between given factors. It's the case when analyzing internal and external

factors' impacts (Sehhat & Pirzadi, 2009). Moreover The ANP provides a solution for problems which cannot be

structured hierarchically (BÄuyÄukyazici & Sucu, 2003).

Findings indicate that following "increasing national and international advertisement with focus on quality

superiority" strategy is the best one for Neda Samak Ashena Co. in this period of time.

While having characteristics such as simplicity, flexibility, simultaneous consideration of qualitative and

quantitative criteria, ability to examine compatibility of judgments and rank the final alternatives, ANP overcomes

shortcomings -typical in other methods such as AHP- like lack of considering interdependencies of decision making

criteria and wrong assumption that relationships between criteria are one-way.

ijcrb.webs.com



608

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

References

BÄuyÄukyazici, M., & Sucu, M. (2003). THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY AND ANALYTIC NETWORK

PROCESSES. Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics and Statistics , 32, 65-73.

Görener, A., Toker, K., & Uluçay, k. (2012). Application of Combined SWOT and AHP: A Case Study for a

Manufacturing Firm. Procedia , 58, 1525-1534.

Ralph, D. (2007). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics (5th ed.). Edinburgh: prentice hall.

Sehhat, S., & Pirzadi, E. (2009). Using ANP Technique for Analyzing SWOT. Industrial Management (2), 105-120.

Zebardast, E. (2010). Using ANP in Civic and Regional programming. Fine Art- Architecture and Urban (41), 79-

90.

Web References:

(n.d.). Retrieved from Maxi-pedia.[Online] Available: http://www.maxi-pedia.com/internal+external+IE+matrix

(n.d.). Retrieved from scribd. [Online] Available: http://www.scribd.com/doc/93355670/What-is-IE-Matrix

L. Saaty, T. (1999). Fundamentals of Analytical Network Process. [Online] Available from IOZ:

http://ergonomia.ioz.pwr.wroc.pl/download/AnpSaaty.pdf

L. Saaty, T. (n.d.). The Analytic Network Process. [Online] Available from from SID:

http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/115720080101.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93355670/What-is-IE-Matrix

http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/115720080101.pdf

ijcrb.webs.com



609

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Tables: Table 1 Internal Factors Evaluation (IFE)

score

Weight from

100

Weight

from 1

Weighted

score

Str

eng

ths

Differentiation, pace and quality of sales and after sales services 4 95 0.1 0.40

The way that customer is treated 4 80 0.08 0.34

Customer satisfaction 4 85 0.09 0.36

Senior manager's familiarity with up-to-date management and

marketing knowledge 3 60 0.06 0.19

Having defined, standard and regular work processes 3 55 0.06 0.17

Open system 4 75 0.08 0.31

Cost effectiveness of advertisement 3 55 0.06 0.17

Providing new product and being honest and transparent in

providing information to customers about products, diversity,

performance, and new products and services

3 55 0.06 0.17

Stability in management, senior managers and middle managers 3 50 0.05 0.16

Building a good image of company and its products in market 4 80 0.08 0.34

Wea

kn

esse

s

High product and service price 2 70 0.07 0.15

Low flexibility in giving discount to customers in after sales

services, lack of cash payment 2 55 0.06 0.12

Low flexibility and frequency of sales and pre-sales methods

and sales discounts 2 65 0.07 0.14

Dependency on import 1 75 0.08 0.08

Total 955 1.00 3.08

ijcrb.webs.com



610

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Table 2 External Factors Evaluation (EFE)

score

Weight

from 100

Weight

from 1

Weighted

score

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

Competitors provide low quality products in domestic market 4 85 0.08 0.31

Access to parts of Middle East market 4 75 0.07 0.27

Information and communication infrastructure and facilities 4 80 0.07 0.29

Popularity of using 2 set acoustic and using acoustic in

younger ages 4 85 0.08 0.31

Market growth potential 3 70 0.06 0.19

Attending in internal and international seminars 3 70 0.06 0.19

Student's demand to cooperate with company while studying 3 60 0.05 0.16

Th

reat

s

Cultural malaise in using acoustic 2 70 0.06 0.13

Low rate of market growth and demand 2 60 0.05 0.11

Entry of new competitors to market 2 60 0.05 0.11

Instability in domestic regulations and exchange rate 2 65 0.06 0.12

Instability in international scale, sanctions 2 70 0.06 0.13

Acoustic is not covered by health insurance 1 85 0.08 0.08

Low price of competitors' products and services 1 85 0.08 0.08

Lack of effective research programs in the country about

audiology, acoustic and related technologies 1 85 0.08 0.08

Total 1105 1.00 2.54

ijcrb.webs.com



611

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Table 3 SWOT Matrix

Strengths Weaknesses

S1: Differentiation, pace and quality of sales and after sales

services

S2: The way that customer is treated

S3: Customer satisfaction

S4: Senior manager's familiarity with up-to-date management

and marketing knowledge

S5: Having defined, standard and regular work processes

S6: Open system

S7: Cost effectiveness of advertisement

S8: Providing new product and being honest and transparent in

providing information to customers about products,

diversity, performance, and new products and services

S9: Stability in management, senior managers and middle

managers

S10: Building a good image of company and its products in

market

W1: High product and service

price

W2: Low flexibility in giving

discount to customers in

after sales services, lack of

cash payment

W3: Low flexibility and

frequency of sales and pre-

sales methods and sales

discounts

W4: Dependency on import

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

O1: Competitors provide low quality products in domestic market

O2: Access to parts of Middle East market

O3: Information and communication infrastructure and facilities

O4: Popularity of using 2 set acoustic and using acoustic in younger

ages

O5: Market growth potential

O6: Attending in internal and international seminars Student's demand

to cooperate with company while studying

O7: Student's demand to cooperate with company while studying

SO Strategies

Expanding company's presence in IRAN & Middle East

(O1,O2,S1,S2,S7,S8)

Increasing advertisements in national and international levels

with focus of quality superiority

(O1,O2,S1,S2,S7,S8)

WO Strategies

market penetration

(O1,O4,O5,W1)

Th

reat

s

T1: Cultural malaise in using acoustic

T2: Low rate of market growth and demand

T3: Entry of new competitors to market

T4: Instability in domestic regulations and exchange rate

T5: Instability in international scale, sanctions

T6: Acoustic is not covered by health insurance

T7: Low price of competitors' products and services

T8: Lack of effective research programs in the country about

audiology, acoustic and related technologies

ST Strategies

increasing advertisements with focus on superiority in diversity

and performance of products and services

(T3,T7,S7,S9)

creating strategic alliances with competitors

(T3,T7,S1,S4,S9,S11)

opening offices in other countries

(T2,T4,T5,S1,S2,S4,S8)

WT Strategies

production of raw material

(T3,T5,W1,W5)

investing in other segments of

medical equipments' industry

(T1,T2,T3,T6,T7,T8,W1,W2,W3)

ijcrb.webs.com



612

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Table 4 Saaty’s 9 Fundamental scales (L. Saaty, The Analytic Network Process)

1 Equal importance

3 Moderate Importance of one over another

5 Strong or essential importance

7 Very strong or demonstrated importance

9 Extreme importance

2,4,6,8 Intermediate values

Use reciprocals for inverse comparisons

Table 5 Criteria paired comparison Matrix

Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 W

C1 1.00 0.33 3.00 0.20 2.00 4.00 0.15

C2 3.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 0.29

C3 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.17 0.20 0.50 0.04

C4 5.00 0.50 6.00 1.00 0.33 7.00 0.25

C5 0.50 0.50 5.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 0.23

C6 0.25 0.20 2.00 0.14 0.20 1.00 0.04

Table 6 criteria paired comparison matrix considering their interdependencies and C1 as

control criterion

Criteria C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 W

C2 1.00 2.00 0.14 0.25 0.50 0.07

C3 0.50 1.00 0.11 0.20 0.25 0.04

C4 7.00 9.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 0.49

C5 4.00 5.00 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.26

C6 2.00 4.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.14

ijcrb.webs.com



613

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9


control criterion


C1 1.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.52

C3 0.33 1.00 1.50 1.90 1.10 0.16

C4 0.20 0.67 1.00 2.00 1.10 0.12

C5 0.20 0.53 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.08

C6 0.20 0.91 0.91 2.00 1.00 0.13


control criterion


C1 1.00 0.39 0.20 0.90 2.00 0.10

C2 2.56 1.00 0.90 4.00 3.00 0.29

C4 5.00 1.11 1.00 7.00 6.00 0.45

C5 1.11 0.25 0.14 1.00 0.97 0.08

C6 0.50 0.33 0.17 1.03 1.00 0.07


control criterion


C1 1.00 2.50 2.00 6.00 7.00 0.43

C2 0.40 1.00 1.50 4.00 5.00 0.24

C3 0.50 0.67 1.00 4.00 5.00 0.21

C5 0.17 0.25 0.25 1.00 1.50 0.06

C6 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.67 1.00 0.05

ijcrb.webs.com



614

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9


control criterion


C1 1.00 1.50 5.00 4.00 9.00 0.43

C2 0.67 1.00 3.00 4.00 9.00 0.33

C3 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.50 4.00 0.12

C4 0.25 0.25 0.67 1.00 2.00 0.08

C6 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.04


control criterion


C1 1.00 2.50 3.50 5.00 8.00 0.47

C2 0.40 1.00 2.00 3.00 7.00 0.25

C3 0.29 0.50 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.13

C4 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.10

C5 0.13 0.14 0.25 0.33 1.00 0.04

Table 12 Special vectors matrix for paired comparison of interdependencies of criteria

W C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

C1 0.00 0.52 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.47

C2 0.07 0.00 0.29 0.24 0.33 0.25

C3 0.04 0.16 0.00 0.21 0.12 0.13

C4 0.49 0.12 0.45 0.00 0.08 0.10

C5 0.26 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.04

C6 0.14 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.00

Table 13 Paired comparison of strategies' priority related to C1 criterion

Strategies A1 A2 W

A2 1.00 0.20 0.17

A1 5.00 1.00 0.83

ijcrb.webs.com



615

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9


Strategies A1 A2 W

A2 1.00 9.00 0.90

A1 0.11 1.00 0.10


Strategies A1 A2 W

A2 1.00 0.11 0.10

A1 9.00 1.00 0.90


Strategies A1 A2 W

A2 1.00 3.00 0.75

A1 0.33 1.00 0.25


Strategies A1 A2 W

A2 1.00 0.13 0.11

A1 8.00 1.00 0.89


Strategies A1 A2 W

A2 1.00 8.00 0.89

A1 0.13 1.00 0.11

Table 19 Special vectors' paired comparison matrix

W A1 A2

C1 0.17 0.83

C2 0.90 0.10

C3 0.10 0.90

C4 0.75 0.25

C5 0.11 0.89

C6 0.89 0.11

ijcrb.webs.com



616

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Table 20 weighted super matrix

Alternative Criteria

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Alternative 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Criteria

C1 0.15 0.00 0.52 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.47

C2 0.32 0.07 0.00 0.29 0.24 0.33 0.25

C3 0.03 0.04 0.16 0.00 0.21 0.12 0.13

C4 0.22 0.49 0.12 0.45 0.00 0.08 0.10

C5 0.23 0.26 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.04

C6 0.05 0.14 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.00

Table 21 WANP matrix

Criteria WANP

C1 0.29

C2 0.17

C3 0.11

C4 0.23

C5 0.11

C6 0.09

Table 22 Calculating desirability index (Di) of selected strategies and determining their ranks

Criteria Wj

Eij Wj Eij

A1 A2 A1 A2

C1 0.29 0.17 0.83 0.05 0.24

C2 0.17 0.90 0.10 0.15 0.02

C3 0.11 0.10 0.90 0.01 0.10

C4 0.23 0.75 0.25 0.17 0.06

C5 0.11 0.11 0.89 0.01 0.10

C6 0.09 0.89 0.11 0.08 0.01

0.46 0.52

ijcrb.webs.com



617

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Figures:

Opportunities

4

3.26

conservative strategy conservative strategy

4

2.5

defensive strategy competitive strategy

1

Threats 1 2.5 3.08

Weaknesses

Strengths

Fig. 1 IE Diagram

ijcrb.webs.com



618

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Fig. 2 Decision making hierarchy tree

Choosing best strategy

Expanding company's presence in

IRAN & Middle East

(A1)

Access to

parts of

Middle

East

market

(C6)

Cost

effectiveness of

advertisement

(C3)

Differentiati

on, pace and

quality of

sales and

after sales

services

(C1)

Competitors

provide low

quality

products in

domestic

market

(C5)

Providing new product and being

honest and transparent in providing

information to customers about

products, diversity, performance, and

new products and services

(C4)

The way

that

customer

is treated

(C2)

Increasing advertisements in national and international

levels with focus of quality superiority

(A2)

using analytical network process (anp) …journal-archieves27.webs.com/603-618.pdf · key words:...

Documents