Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 319–326 | Cite as

An Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach to Risk Analysis: A Case Study of a New Generic Drug Development Process

  • Chatchai Raka
  • Jirapan LiangrokapartEmail author
Original Article



Risks that are associated with the new generic drug development process, which is the initial stage of the pharmaceutical supply chain, need to be considered and eliminated. The main purpose of this study was to prioritize the risks associated with the new generic drug development process in Thailand.


In this study, an in-depth interview, several rounds of expert discussion, and a focus group have been conducted to identify the risk factors. The final analysis was summarized based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology.


The risks were classified into the following seven categories: (1) regulatory, (2) technological, (3) operational, (4) intellectual property, (5) financial, (6) market, and (7) information. They were used as criteria for and developed a questionnaire according to the AHP structure. The results from the inputs of ten experts in the pharmaceutical supply chain who identified the priority criteria among these seven categories revealed that the most important criterion is regulatory risk, followed by information, operational, financial, intellectual property, market, and technology risks.


These major risks should be prioritized so that they can be appropriately managed.


New generic drug Pharmaceutical supply chain Supply chain risk management (SCRM) Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) 


Acknowledgement and Funding

This research is supported by the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) under the graduated research scholarship in the year 2016. The authors would like to acknowledge the representatives from local pharmaceutical companies and other involved parties who participated in the preliminary study’s in-depth interview, as well as experts from the pharmaceutical industry and academic who provided their opinions for a pair-wise comparison in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) analysis in this research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    The Government Pharmaceutical Organization. Annual Report. 2012. Accessed 8 June 2013.
  2. 2.
    Lee CY, Chen X, Romanelli RJ, Segal JB. Forces influencing generic drug development in the United States: a narrative review. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice. 2016;9:26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Merna T, Al Thani FF. Case study 1: Risks in projects in the pharmaceutical industry. Corporate risk management. 2nd ed. USA: Wiley; 2008. p. 319–32.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shah N. Pharmaceutical supply chains: key issues and strategies for optimization. Comput Chem Eng. 2004;28:929–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oke A, Gopalakrishnan M. Managing disruptions in supply chains: a case study of a retail supply chain. Int J Prod Econ. 2009;118:168–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tang CS. Perspectives in supply chain risk management. Int J Prod Econ. 2006;103:451–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sipahi S, Timor M. The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an overview of applications. Manag Decis. 2010;48:775–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Services Sciences. 2008;1:83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu CR, Lin CT, Chen HC. Optimal selection of location for Taiwanese hospitals to ensure a competitive advantage by using the analytic hierarchy process and sensitivity analysis. Build Environ. 2007;42:1431–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saaty TL, Vargas LG. Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 8–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thailand Board of Investment. Thailand Invest Rev. 2011;21(8). Accessed 21 July 2014.
  12. 12.
    Thailand Board of Investment. Investment Promot J. 2016;27(4). Accessed 10 Aug 2016.
  13. 13.
    Enyinda CI. Modelling risk management in the pharmaceutical industry global supply chain logistics using analytical hierarchy process model (Doctoral dissertation). Fargo: North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science; 2008.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaplan WA, Ritz LS, Vitello M, Wirtz VJ. Policies to promote use of generic medicines in low and middle income countries: a review of published literature, 2000–2010. Health Policy. 2012;106:211–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    KPMG International. Risk management in the pharmaceuticals and life sciences industry: an economist intelligence unit research program. 2009. Accessed 8 Oct 2016.
  16. 16.
    Laínez JM, Schaefer E, Reklaitis GV. Challenges and opportunities in enterprise-wide optimization in the pharmaceutical industry. Comput Chem Eng. 2012;47:19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Chartered Quality Institute. A guide to supply chain risk management for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries and their suppliers. 2010. Accessed 8 Jan 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringFaculty of Engineering, Mahidol UniversityPhuttamonthonThailand

Personalised recommendations