The idea of synthesizing analytical and heuristic approaches is proposed in order to join different approaches to the Venture Capitalists (VCs) decision making. The research applies Analytic Network Process (ANP) methodology to the comparative evaluation of four e-commerce startups. The proposed ANP model represents the decision problem as a structure of Benefits-Opportunities and Risks networks with dependences and feedbacks between decision criteria and alternatives. Based on VCs judgments that are checked for consistency, the ANP approach helps choose the best startup for funding or to estimate the target startup versus other startups. The ratings that are obtained may be used as weights for determining a startups valuation. In the model, heuristics is used without reducing the complexity of the task and thus helps avoid the systematic error. Moreover, the idea of applying ANP to the VCs decision making serves to make the decision process transparent and understandable. To implement the ANP model, Multichoice software has been developed.
venture capital, decision making, heuristics, analytic network process, startups evaluation
Afful-Dadziea E, Oplatkováa, Z.K., Nabareseh, S. (2015). Selecting start-up businesses in a public venture capital financing using Fuzzy PROMETHEE. 19th International Conference on Knowledge Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems. Procedia Computer Science, 60, 63-72. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.105
Beim, G., Lévesque, M. (2004). Selecting projects for venture capital funding : A Multiple Criteria Decision approach. Technical Memorandum Number 791, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western University.
Bertoni, F., Colombo, M.G., Grilli, L. (2011). Venture capital financing and the growth of high-tech start-ups: Disentangling treatment from selection effects. Research Policy, 40(7), 1028-1043. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.03.008
Beshah, B., Kitaw, D. (2013). AHP application in a financial institution. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 5(1), 54-71. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v5i1.135
Bhandari, A., Nakarmi, A. (2016). A financial perfomance evaluation of commercial banks in Nepal using AHP model. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 8(2), 318-333. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v8i2.368
Bozóki, Sándor, János, Fülöp, Rónyai, L. (2010). On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 52 (1-2), 318-333. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2010.02.047
Camerer C. F., Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D. (2004). Neuroeconomics: Why economics needs brains. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106 (3), 555-579. Doi: 10.1111/j.0347-0520.2004.00377.x
Chemmanur, T., Krishnan, K., Debarshi K. Nandy. (2008). How does venture capital financing improve efficiency in private firms? A look beneath the surface. Review of Financial Studies, 24(12), 4037-4090. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhr096
Dimov, D., Shepherd, D.A., Sutcliffe, K.M. (2007). Requisite expertise, firm reputation, and status in venture capital investment allocation decisions. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 481-502. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.001
Fielden, S. L., Davidson, M.J., Makin, P.J. (2000). Barriers encountered during micro and small business start-up in North-West England. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 7(4), 295-304. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006852
Fedrizzia, M., Giove,S. (2007). Incomplete pairwise comparison and consistency optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 183(1), 303-313. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.09.065
Forbes, R. (2017). School of a young billionaire. http://www.forbes.ru/school
Gompers, P. A., Lerner, J. (2004). The venture capital cycle (Second edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gui-lan, Hu. (2011). An improved AHP-based evaluation study on the investment risk of venture capital company. Fourth International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling, 2011, 17-20. Doi:10.1109/KAM.2011.12
Hall, J. Hofer, C.W. (1993). Venture capitalists’ decision criteria in new venture evaluation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1), 25–42. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90009-T
Helm, R., Manthey, L., Scholl, A. Steiner,M. (2002). Preference measurement with conjoint analysis and AHP: An empirical comparison. In Ulrike Leopold-Wildburger et. al. (Eds), Operations Research Proceedings, 517-524. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55537-4_84
Helm, R., Steiner, M. Scholl, A. Manthey, L. (2004). A comparative empirical study on common methods for measuring preferences. Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft : Arbeits- und Diskussionspapiere der Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena. Doi: 10.1504/IJMDM.2008.017408. Doi: 10.1504/IJMDM.2008.017408
Hsu, D. K, Haynie, J.M., Simmons, S.A., McKelvie, A. (2014). What matters, matters differently: a conjoint analysis of the decision policies of angel and venture capital investors. Venture Capital, 16(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2013.825527
Hudson, J. Khazragui, H.F. (2013). Into the valley of death: Research to innovation. Drug Discovery Today, 18(13-14), 610-613. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2013.01.012
Ijzerman, M. J., Van Til, J.A., Bridges, J.F.. (2010). A comparison of Analytic Hierarchy Process and conjoint analysis Mmethods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 5(1), 45-56. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2165/11587140-000000000-00000
Koczkodaj, W.W., Szybowski. J. (2016). The limit of inconsistency reduction in pairwise comparisons. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, 26 (3), 721–729. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/amcs-2016-0050
Landström, H. (2007). Handbook of Research on Venture Capital. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lipovetsky, S. (2016). AHP structuring in best-worst scaling and the
secretary problem. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process,
8(3), 502-513. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v8i3.332
Lu, Z., Shen, Y. (2011). The study on venture capital project appraisal using AHP-Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation methods. International Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology, 3(8), 50-56.
MacMillan, I.C., Zeman, L., SubbaNarasimha. P.N. (1987). Criteria distinguishing unsuccessful ventures in the venture screening process. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(2), 123-137. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(87)90003-6
Meißner, M., Decker, R. (2009). An empirical comparison of CBC and AHP for measuring consumer preferences. In T. Tjader (Ed). Proceedings of Tenth International Symposium on Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP 2009),University of Pittsburgh, USA: Creative Decisions Foundation.
Milkova, M., Andreichikova, O. (2016). Software announcement: Multichoice as new software for decision making with Analytic Network Process. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 8(2), 388-400. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v8i2.413
Miloud, T., Aspelund, A., Cabrol, M. (2012). Startup valuation by venture capitalists: an empirical study. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 14 (2-3), 151-174. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2012.667907
Mitteness, C., Sudek, R., Cardon, M.S. (2012). Angel investor characteristics that determine whether perceived passion leads to higher evaluations of funding potential. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(5), 592-606. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.11.003
Monika, D., Sharma, A.K. (2015). Venture capitalists’ investment decision criteria for new ventures: A review.” XVIII Annual International Conference of the Society of Operations Management (SOM-14). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 465-470. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.195
Mousavi, S., Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1671-1678. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.013
Narayanasamy, C., Hashemoghli, A., Rashid, R.M.. (2012). Venture capital pre-investment decision making process: An exploratory study in Malaysia. Global Journal of Business Research, 6(5), 49-63.
Pakizeh, K., Hosseini, M. (2015). Venture capital investment selection based on PROMETHEE. Applied Mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology, 3(1), 566-572.
Robinson, R.B. (1987). Emerging strategies in the venture capital industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 53–77. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(87)90019-X
Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The
Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145, 85-91. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8
Saaty, T. L. (2008a). The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network measurement
processes: Applications to decisions under risk. European Journal of Pure
and Applied Mathematics, 1(1), 122-196.
Saaty, T. L. 2(008b). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision
making – why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the
measurement of intangible factors: The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process.
RACSAM - Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas, 102(2), 251–318. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03191825
Saaty, T.L. (2010). Principia mathematica decernendi: Mathematical principles of decision making: Generalization of the Analytic Network Process to neural firing and synthesis. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L. (2013). On the measurement of intangibles. A principal eigenvector approach to relative measurement derived from paired comparisons. Notices of the AMS, 60(2), 192-208.
Saaty, T.L., Vargas. L.G. (2006). Decision making with the Analytic Network Process: economic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. New York: Springer.
Saracoglu, B.O. (2015). An AHP application in the investment selection of small hydropower plants in Turkey. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process,
7(2), 211-239. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.198
Savaneviciene, A., Venckuviene, V., Girdauskienea, L. (2015). Venture capital a catalyst for start-ups to overcome the "Valley of Death": Lithuanian case. 4th World Conference on Business, Economics and Management, WCBEM. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 1052-1059. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00929-6
Schol, A., Manthey, L., Helm, R., Steiner, M. (2005). Solving multiattribute design problems with Analytic Hierarchy Process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison. European Journal of Operational Research, 164, 760-777. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.01.026
Shepherd, D.A., Zacharakis. A. (1999). Conjoint analysis: a new methodological approach for researching the decision policies of venture capitalists. Venture Capital, 1(3), 197-217. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/136910699295866
Shepherd, D.A., Zacharakis, A. (2002). Venture capitalists' expertise: A call for research into decision aids and cognitive feedback. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(1), 1-20. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00051-3
Shijian, F. Yinyan, C. (2015). AHP-Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model of venture investment and financing system: Based on the case of incubation base in Anhui. Canadian Social Science, 11(1), 148-153.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Su, H., Jiang, R. Ma, X. (2009_. Risk evaluation of venture capital based on AHP and grey relational analysis methods. International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, 2009, 316-320. Doi: 10.1109/ICIII.2009.536
Timmons, J.A. Spinelli, S. (2004). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Tripathi, A., Vidyarthi, D.P. (2015). Task allocation on cloud resources using Analytic Network Process. Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Computer Engineering and Applications (ICACEA), 971-978. Doi: 10.1109/ICACEA.2015.7164847
Tversky, A. Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124-1131. Doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Wiratno, S., Latiffianti, E., Wirawan, K.K. (2015). Selection of business funding proposals using analytic network process: a case study at a venture capital company.” Industrial Engineering and Service Science. Procedia Manufacturing 4: 237-243. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.11.037
Woike, J.K., Hoffrage, U., Petty, J.S.. (2015). Picking profitable investments: The success of equal weighting in simulated venture capitalist decision making. Journal of Business Research, 68(8), 1705–1716. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.030
Zacharakis, A.L., Meyer, G.D. (1998). A lack of insight: Do venture capitalists really understand their own decision process?” Journal of Business Venturing, 13(1), 57-76. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00004-9
Zacharakis, A.L., Meyer, G.D. (2000). The potential of actuarial decision models: Can they improve the venture capital investment decision?” Journal of Business Venturing, 15(4), 323-346. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00016-0
Zacharakis, A., Shepherd, D.A. (2001). The nature of information and overconfidence on venture capitalists' decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4), 311-332. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00052-X
Zacharakis, A., Shepherd, D.A. (2004). A non-additive decision-aid for venture capitalists investment decisions. European Journal of Operational Research, 162, 673–689. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2003.10.028
Copyright of all articles published in IJAHP is transferred to Creative Decisions Foundation (CDF). However, the author(s) reserve the following:
- All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
- The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain permission from CDF as well. However, CDF may grant rights with respect to journal issues as a whole.
- The right to use all or parts of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, textbooks, or reprint books.
- The authors affirm that the article has been neither copyrighted nor published, that it is not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work is officially sponsored, it has been released for open publication.
The only exception to the statements in the paragraph above is the following: If an article published in IJAHP contains copyrighted material, such as a teaching case, as an appendix, then the copyright (and all commercial rights) of such material remains with the original copyright holder.
CDF will receive permission for publication of copyrighted material in IJAHP. This permission is not transferable to third parties. Permission to make electronic and paper copies of part or all of the articles, including all computer files that are linked to the articles, for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage.
This permission does not apply to previously copyrighted material, such as teaching cases. In paper copies of the article, the copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date should be visible. To copy otherwise is permitted provided that a per-copy fee is paid.
To republish, to post on servers, or redistribute to lists requires that you post a link to the IJAHP article, which is available in open access delivery mode. Do not upload the article itself.
Authors are permitted to present a talk, based on a paper submitted to or accepted by IJAHP, at a conference where the paper would not be published in a copyrighted publication either before or after the conference and where the author did not assign copyright to the conference or related publisher.