Porównaj metody

	Real Options Strategy Valuation	Analytic Hierarchy Process for Strategic Priorities
Dziedzina	Zarządzanie strategiczne	Zarządzanie strategiczne
Rodzina	MCDM	MCDM
Rok powstania	1994	1980
Twórca	Avinash Dixit & Robert Pindyck; Lenos Trigeorgis; Rita McGrath	Thomas L. Saaty
Typ	Option-valuation framework for strategic investment under uncertainty	Multi-criteria decision analysis via pairwise comparison
Źródło pierwotne	Dixit, A. K., & Pindyck, R. S. (1994). Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691034102	Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 9780070543713
Inne nazwy	Real Options Reasoning, Strategic Flexibility Valuation, Options-Based Strategy Analysis, Growth and Deferral Option Valuation	Strategic AHP Prioritization, AHP for Strategy Decisions, Pairwise Strategic Priority Setting, Hierarchical Strategic Decision Weighting
Pokrewne	4	3
Podsumowanie	Real options strategy valuation treats discretionary strategic investments - the chance to defer, expand, contract, stage, switch, or abandon a project - as financial-style options whose value comes from managerial flexibility under uncertainty. Dixit and Pindyck's 1994 Investment under Uncertainty established the theory that, when investment is irreversible and the future is uncertain, the right to wait has positive value and raises the threshold above which committing capital is optimal. Trigeorgis's 1996 synthesis showed how to decompose a strategic project's worth into a passive net present value plus the premium attached to its embedded options, and how to value those options with contingent-claims logic. Rita McGrath's 1999 work brought the same reasoning to strategy and entrepreneurship, arguing that managers should pursue high-variance opportunities with small, staged commitments so that downside is capped while upside stays open.	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.