手法を比較

	Strategic Importance-Performance Analysis	Analytic Hierarchy Process for Strategic Priorities
分野	経営戦略論	経営戦略論
系統	Process / pipeline	MCDM
提唱年	1977	1980
提唱者	John A. Martilla & John C. James	Thomas L. Saaty
種類	Two-dimensional attribute prioritization grid	Multi-criteria decision analysis via pairwise comparison
原典	Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79.	Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 9780070543713
別名	Strategic IPA Grid, Importance-Performance Matrix for Strategy, Attribute Prioritization Grid, Action Grid Analysis	Strategic AHP Prioritization, AHP for Strategy Decisions, Pairwise Strategic Priority Setting, Hierarchical Strategic Decision Weighting
関連	3	3
概要	Strategic importance-performance analysis (IPA) is a simple, visual method for prioritizing attributes by plotting how important each one is against how well the organization performs on it. Martilla and James introduced IPA in 1977 to help managers translate satisfaction research into action, arguing that measuring performance alone is not enough — you must know which attributes matter. The two dimensions define a grid with four action quadrants, from 'concentrate here' (high importance, low performance) to 'possible overkill' (low importance, high performance). Used strategically, IPA turns a list of capabilities, service features, or strategic factors into a clear map of where to invest, where to maintain, and where resources may be wasted, making it a lightweight complement to more formal prioritization tools.	The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) applied to strategic priorities is a multi-criteria decision method that structures a complex strategy choice into a hierarchy of goal, criteria, and alternatives, then derives priority weights from expert pairwise comparisons. Thomas Saaty developed AHP in the 1970s and set out its full theory in his 1980 book, with a widely cited 1990 article distilling how to make a decision with the method. Its appeal for strategy is that it converts the qualitative judgments managers actually make — that growth matters more than cost control, say — into ratio-scale weights, while quantifying and policing the consistency of those judgments. The result is a transparent, defensible ranking of strategic options that integrates multiple, often conflicting, criteria.