Resources Policy 42 (2014) 18–26

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

An ANP–SWOT approach for interdependency analysis and prioritizing

the Iran's steel scrap industry strategies
Reza Shakoor Shahabi a,n, Mohammad Hossein Basiri b, Mahdi Rashidi Kahag c,
Samad Ahangar Zonouzi d
a
Mining Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran
b
Mining Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
c
Department of Industrial Engineering, Science & Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran
d
Central Bank of Iran, Tehran, Iran

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Supplying raw materials plays a central role in the Iran's crude steel plants. Iran's scrap recycling
Received 24 January 2014 industry, as a major supplier of steel scraps, requires identifying and performing the efficient strategies
Received in revised form to utilize the substantial amount of steel scrap. In this research, by designing a model and implementing
26 April 2014
the efficient strategic factors (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats), via the SWOT analysis,
Accepted 20 July 2014
the appropriated strategies, SO, ST, WO and WT are determined. This model consists of four factors, 14
sub-factors and eight strategies. Since the SWOT method is unable to rank the factors and strategies, the
Keywords: MADM technique is applied to prioritize them. The dependency between the factors affects the priority
SWOT analysis of strategies. Therefore, AHP and ANP methods are applied discretely to examine whether the
ANP
dependency among the factors changes the priorities of strategies.
AHP
Comparison of the outcomes from the AHP and ANP methods presents that the dependency among
MADM
Iran steel scrap industry the factors in ANP method causes major changes in ranking the alternatives particularly for the principal
alternatives.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
The intensive consumption of non-renewable mineral
resources, leads to further utilization of metal scraps as one of
the most significant substitution of raw material in the metal
industry. In many countries, after classification and cleaning, metal
scraps are crushed and turned into powders for different industrial
applications. Steel is the most consumed metal in the world. It is
produced from iron ore or scrap through variety of processes. Steel
scrap generally is obtained from recycling of the appliances, foods
packages, outdoors wastes, industrial metal wastes, rebuilding
production lines, machineries, and scabbed cars and ships. The
amount of scrap recycling in each country depends on different
factors such as economic development level, steel consumption
and production rate as well as the accumulated metal scraps.
Iran's steel industries with 20 million tons of crude steel
production capacity as well as 14.5 million tons of annual
productions in 2012, is the 15th crude steel producer in the world
(WSA, 2013). According to the Iran steel industry master plan, this
capacity will reach to 55 million tons in 2025. This sum will need a
high volume of raw materials such as iron ore, coal, natural gas
and water. Since Iran has huge natural gas resources, the majority
of Iran's steels are produced from Direct Reduction of Iron ore
(DRI) technology. This method requires a substantial consumption
of steel scraps, as one of the most important and non-substitutable
raw material used in the crude steel production.
Although Iran has more than 100 units of steel metal recycling
plants, with approximately one million tons capacity, there are
remarkable amounts of unused scrap potentials. This significant
gap necessitates identification of existing obstacles in the Iran's
scrap industry development and recycling activities to fulfill
preparation of major part of the steel industry material require-
ments. Precise analysis of effective internal and environmental
strategic factors can lead to recognition and presentation of
efficient strategies to develop steel recycling industries and more
utilization of country potentials.
Literature review

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 98 28 33901133; fax: þ 98 28 33901121. Organizations are facing with different challenges and oppor-
E-mail address: Shahabi@eng.ikiu.ac.ir (R. Shakoor Shahabi). tunities to carry out their goals and missions. Strategic planning is

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.07.001
0301-4207/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Shakoor Shahabi et al. / Resources Policy 42 (2014) 18–26
an efficient framework for enterprises to promote their position
with rapid environmental changes. SWOT technique as a powerful
strategic and environmental analysis tools, are applied in order to
identify key internal and external strategic factors (Babaesmailli et
al., 2012). This method determines the best combinatory strategies
that maximize the strengths and opportunities and minimize the
weakness and threats effects. The most significant step of SWOT
analysis is identifying the strength, weakness, opportunity and
threat factors. After creating the SWOT matrix through the men-
tioned factors, based on their combination, four pair wise SO, ST,
WO and WT groups of strategies are identified (Hill and
Westbrook, 1997).
In spite of the broad application of SWOT analysis, this method
encounters several restrictions including impossibility of ranking
criteria and strategies (Pahl and Richter, 2009). Thus, one of the
challenges in SWOT analysis is how to rank the strategies and
factors. Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM) methods are
used as a major tool for ranking alternatives in the complex and
multi-dimensional problems. These techniques consider the dif-
ferent criteria and alternatives depending on the type of problems.
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) presented by Saaty (1982) is
one of the most applied methods of MADM. It is a mathematical
technique based on the pair wise comparison matrix. By use of
pair wise comparison method, the participants can focus, on each
part of the problem. Simply two criteria should be considered at
any one time in order that the participant's judgmental task is
simplified. This method is more accurate and simply compared to
other comparative scale methods. The most important advantage
of AHP approach is its ability to change a complex problem with a
hierarchy structure including: goal, criteria, sub-criteria and alter-
natives. The major capabilities of this method are creating a
hierarchical structure without limitation of layer's number, estab-
lishing preferences by simple pair wise comparisons and also
inspecting logical compatibility by using measurements (Saaty,
1982). In order to solve the problem accompanied with hierarch-
ical structure, the AHP procedures are defined as follows:
Step 1: Hierarchy structure is defined in such a way that the
goal is placed at the top of hierarchy, and the criteria and
strategies attaining from SWOT analysis are placed in
descending order.
Step 2: At each level, the pair wise comparison matrix is
derived. In order to identify priority of any criterion (alter-
native) respect to other criteria (alternative) in the matrix, a
fundamental scale of crisp number ranging from 1 (equal) to 9
(absolute importance) is used.
Step 3: All the pair wise comparison matrices are synthesized
to calculate relative and global weight of each criterion, sub-
criterion and alternative.
AHP method was used in different ways to solve decision
making problems. It was applied and combined with the other
MADM methods in various cases (Ho, 2008; Amiri, 2010; Reza et
al., 2011; Vidal et al., 2011; Joshi et al., 2011; Bruno et al., 2012).
Also, in some research, the AHP is used in the SWOT analysis
(Chang and Huang, 2006; Kajanus et al., 2012). The most impor-
tant drawback of AHP is that it does not consider the dependency
among strategic factors. If dependency is mutual or one compo-
nent has effect on the other one, using AHP method is not possible
(Saaty, 1994a, 1994b). As a result, it is necessary to employ a new
approach to consider the possible dependency among factors and
apply it in related calculations. Thus, Saaty (1996) presented
Analytical Network Process (ANP) as developed method of AHP
that consider the entire relations among criteria, sub-criteria and
clusters. ANP not only can solve the AHP problem, but also capable
19
to deal with interdependent relationships within a multi-criteria
decision making model (Chen and Yang, 2011). In the network
structure of ANP model all possible relations can be characterized
(Gwo-Hshiung et al., 2011). In the recent years ANP method has
been combined with the other operational research techniques to
solve various problems such as
 resource allocation in transportation (Wey and Wu, 2007),
 analyzing benefits, opportunities, costs and risks (Wijnmalen,
2007),
 sustainable resource management (Tseng, 2009),
 assessment of information security risk control (Yu-Ping et al.,
2009),
 identification of core technologies (Lee et al., 2009),
 evaluation of the suitability of different energy power plant
investments (Atmaca and Basar, 2012),
 evaluation of solar–thermal power plant investment projects
(Aragonés-Beltrán et al., 2014), and
 assessment of suitable partner for the implementation of a
collaborative CO2 reduction (Theißen and Spinler, 2014).
Because of the existing interdependency and dependency among
all components of SWOT analysis, it can be inferred that there is a
necessity to apply the ANP method for ranking of strategies, factors
and sub-factors. Many researchers developed different techniques to
quantify the SWOT analysis. In these studies, by applying the ANP
method, each of SWOT factors, sub-factors and alternatives have been
calculated. Among the applications of combining ANP and SWOT, we
state some of the predominant research. Yüksel and Daǧdeviren
(2007) used ANP method for SWOT analysis of textile firm. The SWOT
analysis was used for identification of factors and strategies. The result
identified 14 factors and four types of strategies that were produced by
comparing these factors (Yüksel and Daǧdeviren, 2007). Sevkli et al.
(2012) applied the fuzzy ANP method for strategic planning of airline
industry in Turkey. Consequently the important sub-factors and seven
alternatives were determined (Sevkli et al., 2012). Also for identifica-
tion of the best strategies of a tile manufacturing firm, the fuzzy ANP
method was combined with SWOT analyze to prioritize strategies
(Babaesmailli et al., 2012). In another research, the integrated SWOT–
fuzzy TOPSIS combined with AHP were used to prioritize the SWOT
factors in the electricity supply chain in Turkey (Bas, 2013).
Analytical network process
ANP is a developed method of AHP that presented by Saaty.
Unlike AHP method, ANP has network and cluster structure. The
hierarchy formation in AHP is a linear top to down structure while
network is a non-linear structures that extent in all directions
(Sevkli et al., 2012). This enables ANP to model the complex
problems in the real world. This method is able to consider the
mutual and interdependent relationships among factors and sub-
factors and rank alternatives, criteria and sub-criteria with con-
sidering mentioned relationships (Saaty, 1994b, 1996, 2004).
Generally, the ANP technique comprises two methods for
ranking the alternatives. The first technique is creating super
matrix. Wij, ith row and jth column of the matrix, is the principal
eigenvector, that represents the influence of the elements com-
pared in the ith cluster on jth cluster. When Wij ¼0, it means the
ith cluster has no influence on jth one. The weighted super matrix
is derived by conveying all column sums to unity value exactly. To
create super matrix, the weight of options is normalized and their
priorities are determined. The weighted super matrix is raised to
powers until the global matrix of priorities is obtained. Finally the
alternatives, criteria and sub-criteria are sorted (Gwo-Hshiung
et al., 2011).
20 R. Shakoor Shahabi et al. / Resources Policy 42 (2014) 18–26
The second method is based on the matrix operations and
performs a pair wise comparison of the criteria on each criterion
(Gwo-Hshiung et al., 2011). This technique is not complicated and
does not need performing of the super matrix (Sipahi and Timor,
2010). This paper utilizes the integrated ANP–SWOT approach
based on the latter ANP technique.
The first step of this approach is modifying the problem to a
hierarchy structure. It enables us to solve the problem both by AHP
and ANP technique. By choosing the appropriate strategy as goal,
the hierarchy structure of problem is defined corresponding to the
strategic planning factors. Thus, each of SWOT's factors is defined
as criterion and each of SWOT's sub-factors is defined as sub-
criterion. Also proposed strategies are defined as alternatives that
should be considered as last level of hierarchy. Here, steps of ANP
method in SWOT analyses are described as follows (Yüksel and
Daǧ deviren, 2007):
 Recognize SWOT factors, sub-factors and alternative strategies.
 By this assumption, there is no dependency among factors. The
importance rank of SWOT groups should be measured via pair
wise comparisons (W1). In this step, AHP technique is applied.
 Due to existing dependency among the groups of SWOT, by
using a scale and pair wise comparison matrices, the inner
dependency of groups is created (W2).
 Calculating the interdependent priorities of SWOT groups (W3),
via multiplying W1 by W2.
 Assessing the importance ranking for the each SWOT sub-
factors by a scale and pair wise comparisons (W4). In this step,
AHP analysis is applied.
 Measuring the final importance rank of each SWOT sub factor
(W5) by multiplying W3 by W4.
 Calculate the importance ranking for the each alternative
strategy by a scale through pair wise comparisons (W6). In this
step, AHP analysis is applied.
 Prioritizing each of the strategies is resulted from multiplying
W5 by W6.
Application of the proposed model
At first, hierarchy structure of problem is defined to select best
strategies of steel scrap industry as goal placed at the top of
hierarchy. SWOT factors (Weaknesses, Strengths, Threats and
Opportunities) as criteria, SWOT sub-factors as the sub-criteria
and the strategies as alternatives are placed in downward order of
hierarchy structure. An expert team was employed to identify the
internal and environmental strategic factors to fulfill the strategic
planning analysis of steel recycling industry. This team comprises
10 individuals familiar from different divisions of steel and scrap
operation, such as manufacturing production, raw material
Table 1
SWOT sub-factors description.
Strengths
S1 Low investment requirement
S2 employment potential of industry
S3 High profit of mechanized scrap plants
Opportunities
O1 Potentials of idle scrap resources in Iran
O2 Technology transfer capability
O3 Vacant capacities of machinery in the Industries
trading, technical training, policy making and HSE departments.
The experts were selected with mechanical engineering, metal-
lurgy, environment and economics fields.
In the first stage, they were invited in a meeting and became
familiar with the aim and methodology of the research. In this way,
the effective external SWOT sub-factors which unable to be affected
by industry, is detected. Furthermore, the internal sub-factors that
can be influenced by industry are identified. In this stage, gathering
the defined strategic factors was presented. The factors were primary
classified and some of them merged to end up with finalized
classification. Table 1 presents the SWOT sub-factors.
Then with constructing the SWOT matrix, the combined
strategies SO, ST, WO and WT based on the experts view were
configured. This model embraces three strength, five weakness
points, three opportunities, three threats and eight combined
strategy as alternatives. Fig. 1 summarizes the results of SWOT
analysis and related guidelines.
The main strategies of steel scrap industry development based
on interactions between SWOT sub-factors and expert's ideas were
grouped into 8 major strategies:
 SO1: Supporting the manufacture of mechanized and high
capacity scrap processing plants.
 SO2: Localization and transferring of the scrap processing
technologies.
 ST1: Adoption of legislation for recycling of appliances and cars.
 ST2: Resource allocation to promote the production technology
in scrap plants.
 WO1: Establishing the scrap recycling towns.
 WO2: Standardization of the scrap production process.
 WT1: Resource allocation for investment and financing the
working capital.
 WT2: Instituting and improvement of the scrap industry orga-
nizations and development of the human resources education.
After identification of the factors, for applying AHP and ANP
analysis, the questionnaire single form was designed for pair wise
comparison. Then, another in person meeting was organized with
each individual expert. After training the instruction of the
questionnaire, the forms were filled by interviewer. At each form,
pair wise comparison matrix between factors is derived. 1 (equal)
to 9 (absolute importance) scales is used to detect priority and
interdependency of factors by considering geometric mean of
suggestions of expert's judgments.
AHP analysis
AHP method was applied and combined with other MADM
methods in different cases to solve decision making problems.
Selection of best strategies as goal placed at the top of hierarchy.
Weakness
W1 Infirmity of the relevant technology
W2 Inadequate level of cash flow
W3 Low productivity of plants
W4 Geographical Scattering and lack of organization
W5 Unskilled labor force
Threats
T1 Low metal recycling per capita in Iran
T2 Shortage and expensiveness of the modern equipment
T3 Environmental constrain on granting recycling certificate
 R. Shakoor Shahabi et al. / Resources Policy 42 (2014) 18–26 21

Fig. 1. SWOT model of Iran's steel scrap production industry.

Table 2 At the next step, the pair wise comparison of each sub-criterion
Pair wise comparison of SWOT factors importance. was implemented separately for each criterion and expert.
Furthermore, the relative priority of each sub-criterion is deter-
Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat Importance degree
mined. The results are presented in Table 3.
of SWOT factors
The overall priority of each sub-factor is calculated by multi-
Strength 1 1/2.0 2.15 2.05 0.280 plying the last columns from results of Table 1 with results of
Weakness 2.0 1 2.05 2.15 0.398 Table 3 results. The results are shown in Table 4.
Opportunity 1/2.15 1/2.05 1 1.85 0.137 This procedure was performed in a similar way to prioritize
Threat 1/2.05 1/2.15 1/1.85 1 0.185
alternatives. In the next stage, the relative priority of the alter-
IR¼ 0.04 native strategies with respect to each SWOT sub-factors were
calculated by considering the average of pair wise comparison
recommended by the expert team. The detailed pair wise compar-
SWOT factors as criteria, SWOT sub-factors as the sub-criteria as isons of each alternative are shown in Appendix A. Finally; the
well as the strategies as alternatives are placed in descending overall priorities of each alternative are calculated using Expert
order of hierarchy structure. At each level, pair wise comparison Choice software. The results are displayed in Table 5.
matrix among criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives is derived. By
use of pair wise comparison method, the participants can focus, on
each part of the problem. Also simply two criteria or attribute
should be considered at each one time. 1 (equal) to 9 (absolute ANP analysis
importance) scales is used to identify priority of criteria and
alternatives. The geometric mean values of filled forms by the In order to identify the ranking of the eight strategies, the
expert team views considered as a mean value of pair wise second proposed approach was applied by ANP technique.
comparison matrices. Therefore, after model designing and data Furthermore, this method utilizes the particular results of AHP
entry in Expert Choice software, AHP analysis was conducted. This analysis. In this regard, the pair wise comparison of the SWOT
software uses eigenvector technique. Also due to the high accuracy factors (Table 2) resulted from the AHP analysis was applied. Then,
of eigenvector technique in measuring the total weights of criteria the dependency analysis of the internal and external environ-
as well as calculating the inconsistency index, the other methods ments between SWOT factors, based on the dominant proposal in
such as geometric mean were not applied. Firstly, the pair wise the filled interview forms of expert team, was employed. Fig. 2
comparison of the SWOT factors respect to the goal was applied. presents schematically the dependencies among the SWOT factors.
Table 2 shows the results of comparison without considering Also, according to Fig. 2, the expert team opinions were applied to
dependency among them. analyze the interplay effects among the factors. The pair wise
22 R. Shakoor Shahabi et al. / Resources Policy 42 (2014) 18–26

Table 3
Relative priority of each SWOT sub-factors (a–d).

(a)

Strengths S1 S2 S3 Relative priority

S1 1 1.9 1/2.9 0.247

S2 1/1.9 1 1/3.15 0.157
S3 2.9 3.15 1 0.596
IR¼ 0.03

(b)

Weakness W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 Relative priority

W1 1 2.75 2.15 1/2.25 1.05 0.209

W2 1/2.75 1 1/2.857 1/1. 9 1/3.0 0.089
W3 1/2.15 2.857 1 1/3.85 1/2.1 0.127
W4 2.25 1. 9 3.85 1 2.15 0.366
W5 1/1.05 3.0 2.1 1/2.15 1 0.209
IR¼ 0.07

(c)

Opportunities O1 O2 O3 Relative priority

O1 1 3.15 3.35 0.615

O2 1/3.15 1 1.65 0.226
O3 1/3.35 1/1.65 1 0.159
IR¼ 0.02

(d)

Threats T1 T2 T3 Relative priority

T1 1 1/1.75 1.15 0.265

T2 1.75 1 3.05 0.534
T3 1/1.15 1/3.05 1 0.201
IR¼ 0.02

Table 4
Overall priority of each SWOT sub-factors by AHP analysis.

Factor Factor's priority Sub factor's relative priority Sub factor's overall priority

Strength 0.280 S1 0.247 0.069

S2 0.157 0.044
S3 0.596 0.167

Weakness 0.398 W1 0.209 0.083

W2 0.089 0.035
W3 0.127 0.051
W4 0.366 0.146
W5 0.209 0.083

Opportunity 0.137 O1 0.615 0.084

O2 0.226 0.031
O3 0.159 0.022

Threat 0.185 T1 0.265 0.049

T2 0.534 0.099
T3 0.201 0.037

comparisons are detailed in Appendix B. The results W 2 are In this phase, the interdependent priorities of the SWOT factors
2 3 (W 3 ) were calculated by multiplying the dependence matrix (W 2 )
S W O T into the vector of importance degree of SWOT's factors (W 1 ):
6S 0:274 7 2 3
6 0 0:202 0:191 7 0:162
6 7
W2 ¼ 6
6W 0:311 0 0:648 0:601 7
7 6 0:253 7
6 7 6 7
4O 0:137 0:521 0 0:125 5 W 3 ¼ W 2 nW 1 ¼ 6 7
4 0:298 5
T 0:553 0:278 0:161 0 0:288
 R. Shakoor Shahabi et al. / Resources Policy 42 (2014) 18–26 23

Table 5 Table 6
Final priorities of alternatives in AHP analysis. Overall priority of the SWOT sub-factors in ANP analysis.

Strategy Overall priority based on AHP Factor Factor's priority Sub factor's Sub factor's overall priority
relative priority
SO1 0.189
SO2 0.102 Strength 0.162 S1 0.247 0.040
WO1 0.179 S2 0.157 0.025
WO2 0.082 S3 0.596 0.097
ST1 0.129
ST2 0.141
Weakness 0.253 W1 0.209 0.053
WT1 0.128
W2 0.089 0.022
WT2 0.049
W3 0.127 0.032
W4 0.366 0.092
W5 0.209 0.053

Opportunity 0.298 O1 0.615 0.183

O2 0.226 0.067
O3 0.159 0.047

Threat 0.288 T1 0.265 0.076

T2 0.534 0.154
T3 0.201 0.058

Table 7
Final priorities of strategies in ANP analysis.

Strategy Overall priority

Fig. 2. Inner dependency between SWOT factors.
SO1 0.158
SO2 0.102
The overall priority of each sub-factor was determined separately WO1 0.180
by multiplying W 3 into the sub-factors relative importance WO2 0.080
(Table 3 in AHP analysis). The results are shown in Table 6. ST1 0.163
The overall priority of the alternative strategies with respect to ST2 0.138
WT1 0.131
each SWOT sub-factors was obtained by considering the average of WT2 0.047
the expert's pair wise comparison. The detailed outcomes are
shown in Appendix C.
The overall priorities of the alternative strategies with respect Table 8
to goal were calculated as sum of each row values in Table 7. The Comparison of ANP and AHP methods.
final priorities of the alternatives were calculated by conducting
Strategy Overall priority Ranking results
the ANP analysis. Consequently, the ranking of 8 strategies for
development of steel scrap industry was resulted via considering ANP AHP ANP AHP
the interrelationships between SWOT factors.
SO1 0.158 0.189 3 1
SO2 0.102 0.102 6 6
WO1 0.180 0.179 1 2
Discussion
WO2 0.080 0.082 7 7
ST1 0.163 0.129 2 4
An AHP analysis was performed to rank the Iran's steel scrap ST2 0.138 0.141 4 3
industry strategies. In order to consider possible dependency WT1 0.131 0.128 5 5
WT2 0.047 0.049 8 8
among factors, sub-factors and alternatives, ANP method is used
to solve problem under dependency assumptions. The overall
computed priorities for alternative strategies shows that WO1
and ST1 strategies are the best strategies. Construction of specia- factors in SWOT structure. But without considering of dependency,
lized recycling towns and implementation of appliance and car weaknesses are the most important factors.
recycling regulations are the best strategies for rapid growth of The main reason for forming the errors in the AHP method is
scrap industry. The results show that potential of unused scrap applying the assumption in which there is independency between
resources in Iran is the most important opportunities for scrap the strategic factors. However, according to the expert views there
industry growth. Also the shortage and expensiveness of modern are dependency effects between the strategic factors. The differ-
scrap processing equipments is the major threat to efficient ences on priority of strategic factor values between the two
development of scrap industry. The results attained from both methods are shown in Fig. 3. Therefore the ANP technique was
AHP and ANP method are shown in Table 8. The strategy ranking applied to take into account the dependency and leads to more
by the ANP and AHP methods, which is shown in Table 9, were accurate result.
found to be different. It is obvious that consideration of the
dependency among factors in ANP method causes remarkable
changes in ranking alternatives especially about high important Conclusion
alternatives.
Based on experts' opinion analysis, and ranking of factors in Performing suitable strategies have remarkable effect on the
ANP, the opportunities have fairly more importance to other real world situation of steel scrap industry. Therefore using a
24 R. Shakoor Shahabi et al. / Resources Policy 42 (2014) 18–26
Table 9
Comparison of final strategies ranking in ANP and AHP analysis.
Rank ANP
1 WO1 Establishing the scrap recycling towns.
2 ST1 Adoption of legislation for recycling of appliances and cars.
3 SO1 Supporting the manufacture of mechanized and high capacity scrap
processing plants.
4 ST2 Resource allocation to promote the production technology in scrap
plants.
5 WT1 Resource allocation for investment and financing the working capital.
6 SO2 Localization and transferring of the scrap processing technologies.
7 WO2 Standardization of the scrap production process.
8 WT2 Instituting and improvement of the scrap industry organizations and development of the human resources education.
W a model to analyze the effect of dependency on selecting the
0.398
0.253
O S
0.162
0.298 0.137 0.280
0.185
ANP
0.288
AHP
T the scale economics principles. Major role of government, is prepara-
Fig. 3. Differences among ANP and AHP on weight of strategic factors.
scientific and efficient method to select the best strategies is
inevitable. SWOT analysis can determine factors, sub-factors and
alternatives. But it is incapable to compare them together as well
as to determine quantitative weights for factors and sub-factors.
Consequently, it cannot prioritize the strategies. Also, SWOT
analysis independently is impotent to consider relationships such
as interdependency, mutual and one-way relationships among the
factors, sub-factors and alternatives. An integrated MADM–SWOT
approach is applied to solve the problem. This paper proposes
AHP
SO1 Supporting the manufacture of mechanized and high capacity scrap
processing plants.
WO1 Establishing the scrap recycling towns.
ST2 Resource allocation to promote the production technology in scrap
plants.
ST1 Adoption of legislation for recycling of appliances and cars.
appropriate strategies for steel scrap industry. It consists of four
factors, 14 sub-factors and eight strategies. In this study the
following procedures were performed:
 Using SWOT analysis to identify the strategic factors and sub-
factors for the steel scrap industry, benefiting from expert
opinions.
 The priorities of SWOT factors, sub-factors and strategies were
measured by applying the AHP method.
 By implementation of ANP method, the dependencies among
factors and final priority of strategies were determined.
The results from the AHP and ANP methods are considerably
different from each other (Table 9). There are remarkable depen-
dencies between the SWOT factors. The dependencies between
SWOT factors affect both the appropriate strategy selection and
the strategy priority ranking.
According to the reciprocal effects between the factors, implement-
ing of WO1, ST1 and SO1 have more priority against the other
strategies. These strategies are based on facilitating the infrastructures,
supplying of row materials, and renovation. These strategies can play
central role to develop the enterprises in such a way that enable them
to increase their production capacity as well as productivity based on
tion of comprehensive plans based on mentioned strategies and
implementation of efficient policies to improvement of Scrap industry
business environment. The other result presents the low effect of
international conditions on scrap industry strategies compared to
internal considerations. Future research can be performed based on
consideration of the dependency effects between SWOT sub-factors
and strategies. In addition other MADM crisp or fuzzy methods such as
TOPSIS technique can be implemented.
Appendix A
See Table A1.
 R. Shakoor Shahabi et al. / Resources Policy 42 (2014) 18–26 25

Table A1
Overall priority of alternatives in AHP analysis.

s1 s2 s3 w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 o1 o2 o3 t1 t2 t3

SO1 0.240 0.257 0.258 0.236 0.061 0.114 0.149 0.153 0.092 0.128 0.191 0.096 0.209 0.203
SO2 0.073 0.087 0.113 0.169 0.043 0.048 0.067 0.092 0.046 0.162 0.229 0.072 0.166 0.048
WO1 0.173 0.185 0.189 0.095 0.106 0.089 0.317 0.094 0.130 0.096 0.086 0.168 0.240 0.254
WO2 0.051 0.056 0.070 0.080 0.063 0.051 0.041 0.302 0.045 0.130 0.095 0.110 0.054 0.080
ST1 0.097 0.124 0.055 0.043 0.151 0.223 0.178 0.060 0.331 0.062 0.058 0.307 0.096 0.193
ST2 0.172 0.099 0.149 0.254 0.093 0.155 0.090 0.130 0.077 0.338 0.230 0.111 0.102 0.116
WT1 0.142 0.141 0.117 0.071 0.444 0.269 0.119 0.094 0.224 0.044 0.073 0.087 0.095 0.069
WT2 0.051 0.050 0.049 0.052 0.040 0.051 0.041 0.074 0.055 0.040 0.037 0.049 0.039 0.037

Appendix B

See Table B1.

Table B1
The inner dependency matrix of the SWOT factors with respect to other factor (a–d).

(a)

Strength W O T Relative dependency

W 1 2.75 1/2.15 0.311

O 1/2.75 1 3.35 0.137
T 2.15 1/3.35 1 0.553
IR ¼ 0.03

(b)

Weakness S O T Relative dependency

S 1 1/2.15 1/1.65 0.202

O 2.15 1 2.25 0.521
T 1.65 1/2.25 1 0.278
IR ¼ 0.03

(c)

Opportunity S W T Relative dependency

S 1 1/3.85 1.35 0.191

W 3.85 1 3.55 0.648
T 1/1.35 1/3.55 1 0.161
IR ¼ 0.03

(d)

Threats S W O Relative dependency

S 1 1/2.5 2.5 0.274

W 2.5 1 4.2 0.601
O 1/2.5 1/4.2 1 0.125
IR ¼ 0.02

Appendix C

See Table C1.

Table C1
Overall priority of alternatives in ANP analysis.

s1 s2 s3 w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 o1 o2 o3 t1 t2 t3

SO1 0.009 0.006 0.023 0.012 0.001 0.004 0.012 0.008 0.016 0.008 0.009 0.007 0.030 0.011
SO2 0.003 0.002 0.011 0.009 0.001 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.008 0.011 0.011 0.005 0.026 0.003
WO1 0.007 0.005 0.019 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.032 0.005 0.025 0.007 0.004 0.013 0.038 0.015
WO2 0.002 0.001 0.007 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.016 0.008 0.009 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.005
ST1 0.004 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.003 0.007 0.016 0.003 0.062 0.004 0.003 0.023 0.015 0.011
ST2 0.007 0.003 0.015 0.013 0.002 0.005 0.008 0.007 0.014 0.023 0.011 0.008 0.016 0.007
WT1 0.006 0.004 0.011 0.004 0.010 0.009 0.011 0.005 0.041 0.003 0.003 0.007 0.015 0.004
WT2 0.002 0.001 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.010 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.002
26 R. Shakoor Shahabi et al. / Resources Policy 42 (2014) 18–26
References
Amiri, M.P., 2010. Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP and
fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 6218–6224.
Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Chaparro-González, F., Pastor-Ferrando, J.-P., Pla-Rubio, A.,
2014. An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-
based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power
plant investment projects. Energy 66, 222–238.
Atmaca, E., Basar, H.B., 2012. Evaluation of power plants in Turkey using Analytic
Network Process (ANP). Energy 44, 555–563.
Babaesmailli, M., Arbabshirani, B., Golmah, V., 2012. Integrating analytical network
process and fuzzy logic to prioritize the strategies – a case study for tile
manufacturing firm. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 925–935.
Bas, E., 2013. The integrated framework for analysis of electricity supply chain using
an integrated SWOT–fuzzy TOPSIS methodology combined with AHP: the case
of Turkey. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 44, 897–907.
Bruno, G., Esposito, E., Genovese, A., Passaro, R., 2012. AHP-based approaches for
supplier evaluation: problems and perspectives. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 18,
159–172.
Chang, H.H., Huang, W.C., 2006. Application of a quantification SWOT analytical
method. Math. Comput. Model. 43, 158–169.
Chen, J., Yang, Y., 2011. A Fuzzy ANP-based approach to evaluate region agricultural
drought risk. Procedia Eng. 23, 822–827.
Gwo-Hshiung, T., Tzeng, G.H., Huang, J.J., 2011. Multiple Attribute Decision Making:
Methods and Applications. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL,
ISBN: 978-1-4398-6157-8.
Hill, T., Westbrook, R., 1997. SWOT analysis: it's time for a product recall. Long
Range Plan. 30, 46–52.
Ho, W., 2008. Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications – a
literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 186, 211–228.
Joshi, R., Banwet, D.K., Shankar, R., 2011. A Delphi–AHP–TOPSIS based benchmark-
ing framework for performance improvement of a cold chain. Expert Syst. Appl.
38, 10170–10182.
Kajanus, M., Leskinen, P., Kurttila, M., Kangas, J., 2012. Making use of MCDS
methods in SWOT analysis – lessons learnt in strategic natural resources
management. For. Policy Econ. 20, 1–9.
Lee, H., Kim, C., Cho, H., Park, Y., 2009. An ANP-based technology network for
identification of core technologies: a case of telecommunication technologies.
Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 894–908.
Pahl, N., Richter, A., 2009. SWOT Analysis – Idea, Methodology And a Practical
Approach. BoD – Books on Demand.
Reza, B., Sadiq, R., Hewage, K., 2011. Sustainability assessment of flooring systems in
the city of Tehran: an AHP-based life cycle analysis. Constr. Build. Mater. 25,
2053–2066.
Saaty, T.L., 1982. Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for
Decisions in a Complex Work. Lifetime Learning Publications, Wadsworth.
Atlasnta, Georgia 180pp, ISBN 0-534-97959-9.
Saaty, T.L., 1994a. Fundamentals of Decision Making. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Saaty, T.L., 1994b. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy processInterfaces
24, 19–43.
Saaty, T.L., 1996. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic
Network Process.
Saaty, T.L., 2004. Decision making – the analytic hierarchy and network processes
(AHP/ANP). J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 13, 1–35.
Sevkli, M., Oztekin, A., Uysal, O., Torlak, G., Turkyilmaz, A., Delen, D., 2012.
Development of a fuzzy ANP based SWOT analysis for the airline industry in
Turkey. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 14–24.
Sipahi, S., Timor, M., 2010. The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network
process: an overview of applications. Manag. Decis. 48, 775–808.
Theißen, S., Spinler, S., 2014. Strategic analysis of manufacturer–supplier partner-
ships: an ANP model for collaborative CO2 reduction management. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 233, 383–397.
Tseng, M.L., 2009. Application of ANP and DEMATEL to evaluate the decision-
making of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 156, 181–197.
Vidal, L.-A., Marle, F., Bocquet, J.-C., 2011. Using a Delphi process and the Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the complexity of projects. Expert Syst.
Appl. 38, 5388–5405.
Wey, W.-M., Wu, K.-Y., 2007. Using ANP priorities with goal programming in
resource allocation in transportation. Math. Comput. Model. 46, 985–1000.
Wijnmalen, D.J.D., 2007. Analysis of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks (BOCR)
with the AHP–ANP: a critical validation. Math. Comput. Model. 46, 892–905.
WSA, 2013. World Steel in Figures 2013.
Yu-Ping, O.U.Y., Shieh, H.M., Leu, J.D., Tzeng, G.H., 2009. A VIKOR-based multiple
criteria decision method for improving information security risk. Int. J. Inf.
Technol. Decis. Mak. 8, 267–287.
Yüksel, İ., Daǧ deviren, M., 2007. Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a
SWOT analysis – a case study for a textile firm. Inf. Sci. 177, 3364–3382.