Published Dec 19, 2021
Idriss Abdou Mohamed Tkiouat


In order to address challenges in the sustainable development of transportation, economy, and environment, governments along with conventional automobile manufacturers and consumers are extremely interested in the development of the electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing industry and market. However, many manufacturers are worried about entering the EV market because of some of the limitations of EVs and government economic policies. A framework for failure risk-based ranking of EV projects is proposed that applies the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a method of ranking. The hierarchy structure of the AHP is created with the risk categories, risk factors, and EV project candidates at different levels of the decision. By specifying the failure risk categories and failure risk factors, the ranking of EV project failure risks and the EV projects are accomplished via the pairwise comparison in the AHP. The results from the ranking provide useful information for planning and decision making. In fact, the results of the proposed method make it possible to specify the EV projects that are feasible to carry out and to compare the various projects at the technical and economic level.

How to Cite

Abdou, I., & Tkiouat, M. (2021). AN AHP APPLICATION FOR FAILURE RISK-BASED RANKING OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE PROJECTS. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 13(3).


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 708 | PDF Downloads 350



Failure risk-based ranking, EV projects, investment, multi-criteria decision making, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Beeton, D., & Meyer, G. (2014). Electric vehicle business models. Heidelberg: Springer.

Biresselioglu, M. E., Kaplan, M. D., & Yilmaz, B. K. (2018). Electric mobility in Europe: A comprehensive review of motivators and barriers in decision making processes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 109, 1-13. Doi:

Biswas, T., Chatterjee, P., & Choudhuri, B. (2020). Selection of commercially available alternative passenger vehicle in automotive environment. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(1), 16-27. Doi:

Biswas, T. K., & Das, M. C. (2020). Selection of the barriers of supply chain management in Indian manufacturing sectors due to COVID-19 impacts. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(3), 1-12. Doi:

Bresser, D., Hosoi, K., Howell, D., Li, H., Zeisel, H., Amine, K., & Passerini, S. (2018). Perspectives of automotive battery R&D in China, Germany, Japan, and the USA. Journal of Power Sources, 382, 176-178. Doi:

Chua, A. Y. K. (2009). Exhuming IT projects from their graves: An analysis of eight failure cases and their risk factors. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49(3), 31-39.

Corno, F., Montanaro, T., Migliore, C., & Castrogiovanni, P. (2017). Smartbike: an IoT crowd sensing platform for monitoring city air pollution. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 7(6), 3602. Doi:

Dijk, M., Orsato, R. J., & Kemp, R. (2013). The emergence of an electric mobility trajectory. Energy Policy, 52, 135-145. Doi:

Hanine, Y., Tkiouat, M., & Lahrichi, Y. (2021). An alternate framework for socially responsible portfolios optimization applied to the Moroccan stock exchange. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 13(1), 107-146. Doi:

Hülsmann, M. (2016). Markets and policy measures in the evolution of electric mobility. D. Fornahl (Ed.). Springer. Doi:

Leal Filho, W., & Kotter, R. (Eds.). (2015). E-Mobility in Europe: Trends and good practice. Springer. Doi:

Leal Filho, W., Rath, K., Mannke, F., Vogt, J., Kotter, R., Borgqvist, M., ... & van Deventer, P. (2015). Fostering sustainable mobility in Europe: The contributions of the project “E-mobility North Sea region”. In E-mobility in Europe (pp. 3-25). Springer, Cham. Doi:

Leurent, F., & Windisch, E. (2011). Triggering the development of electric mobility: a review of public policies. European Transport Research Review, 3(4), 221-235. Doi:

Li, J., & Zou, P. X. (2011). Fuzzy AHP-based risk assessment methodology for PPP projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), 1205-1209. Doi:

Liebl, J. (2017). Grid integration of electric mobility. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden. Doi:

McFarlan, F. (1981). Portfolio approach to information systems. Harvard Business Review, 59(5), 142-150.

Müller, B., & Meyer, G. (Eds.). (2015). Electric vehicle systems architecture and standardization needs: Reports of the PPP European green vehicles initiative. Springer. Doi:

Nikowitz, M. (2016). Advanced hybrid and electric vehicles. System optimization and vehicle integration. Springer.

Saaty, R. (1996, July). The Analytic Hierarchy Process and utility theory: Ratio scales and interval scales. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (pp. 12-15).

Saaty, R. W. (2003). Decision making in complex environment: The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making and the analytic network process (ANP) for decision making with dependence and feedback. Pittsburgh: Super Decisions.

Saaty, T. L. (1980). Multicriteria decision making: The analytic hierarchy process. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

Sárdi, D. L., & Bóna, K. (2021, May). AHP-based multicriterial ranking model for the city logistics analysis of urban areas. In LISS 2020: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Logistics, Informatics and Service Sciences (p. 45). Springer Nature. Doi: 10.1007/978-981-33-4359-7_4

Tagscherer, U. (2012). Electric mobility in China: A policy review (No. 30). Fraunhofer ISI discussion papers innovation systems and policy analysis.

Taylan, O., Bafail, A. O., Abdulaal, R. M., & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing, 17, 105-116. Doi:

Zheng, X., Lin, H., Liu, Z., Li, D., Llopis-Albert, C., & Zeng, S. (2018). Manufacturing decisions and government subsidies for electric vehicles in China: A maximal social welfare perspective. Sustainability, 10(3), 672.