Multicriteria Evaluation of Innovation Projects in Services in the Brazilian Insurance Market: A Case Study

  • Priscila Aguiar da Silva
  • Luiz Flávio Autran Monteiro GomesEmail author
Part of the Multiple Criteria Decision Making book series (MCDM)


The evolution in technology drives changes across a variety of market types and they require companies to take an innovative approach, whether it is about creating new products, services and processes, or optimizing existing products, services, and processes. Innovations in the insurance market are related to innovations in services and, in relation to the own concept of services, those are intangible and therefore they are measurement difficult. There is no standard in the evaluation of service innovation, especially in the insurance market. This gap was identified through bibliographic research realized on academic bases. With the objective of using a decision support methodology in the selection of innovative projects, the present study used the Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) concepts, through the Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAVT), in the selection of innovation projects in the Brazilian insurance market. Those are projects being considered for the Antônio Carlos Almeida Braga Prize for Innovation in Insurance, awarded by the National Confederation of General Insurance Companies, Private Pension and Life, Supplementary Health and Capitalization (CNSEG). The concepts of MCDA, with the presentation of a method for structuring problems, were discussed and, in the sequence, the multi-attribute value function was elaborated for this case study and applied to the innovation projects enrolled in the Prize, with the objective of providing support to the decision-making process.


Decision-making process MCDA MAVT Innovation in services Innovation in insurance 


  1. Anthony, S. D. (2016). Planning to action innovation: A practice manual for getting great ideas into the market. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barras, R. (1986). Towards a theory of innovation in services. Research Policy, 15(4), 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barras, R. (1990). Interactive innovation in financial and business services: The vanguard of the service revolution. Research Policy, 19(3), 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belton, V., & Stewart, T. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernardes, R., Bessa, V., & Kalup, A. (2005). Services at PAEP 2001: Reconfiguring the statistical research agenda for innovation. São Paulo in perspective, 19(2), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choo, E. U., Schoner, B., & Wedley, W. C. (1999). Interpretation of criteria weights in multicriteria decision making. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 37(3), 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clemen, R. T., & Reilly, T. (2013). Making hard decisions with decisiontools. Mason: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  8. Duarte, A. M., Jr. (2013). Analysis of investments in projects: Financial viability and risk. Saint Paul: Saint Paul Publisher.Google Scholar
  9. Dyer, J. S. (2005). MAUT—Multiatribute Utility Theory. In Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 265–292). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Fiordelisi, F., & Ricci, O. (Eds.). (2011).Bancassurance in Europe: Past, present and future, New York. Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (2008). The economics of industrial innovation. Publisher of UNICAMP.Google Scholar
  12. Gallouj, F., & Savona, M. (2009). Innovation in services: A review of the debate and a research agenda. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19(2), 149.Google Scholar
  13. Ganapathy, V. (2014). The rising need for information technology applications in the insurance sector. Journal of The Insurance Institute of India, 1(4), 160–165.Google Scholar
  14. Ghemawat, P. (2012). A strategy and business scenario (2nd ed.). Porto Alegre: Bookman.Google Scholar
  15. Gomes, L. F. A. M., & Gomes, C. F. S. (2014). Managerial decision making: Multicriteria approach (2nd ed). São Paulo: Editora Atlas SA.Google Scholar
  16. Gomes, L. F. A. M., Gonzalez, M. C. A., & Carignano, C. (2004). Decision making in complex scenarios: Introduction to discrete methods of multicriteria decision support. Thomson.Google Scholar
  17. Gowanit, C., Thawesaengkulthai, N., Sophatsathit, P., & Chaivawat, T. (2016). Mobile claim management adoption in emerging insurance markets. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(1), 110–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IBGE. (2015). Quarterly national accounts report. Accessed Abr 12, 2016, from
  19. IBGE. (2016). Innovation research: 2014. Rio de Janeiro. Accessed April 12, 2016,
  20. Jabbour, M., & Abdel-Kader, M. (2016). ERM adoption in the insurance sector: Is it a regulatory imperative or business value driven? Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 13(4), 472–510.Google Scholar
  21. Keeney, R. L. (1982). Decision analysis: An overview. Operations Research, 30(5), 803–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keeney, R. L. (1996). Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research, 92(3), 537–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keeney, R. L. (2013). Foundations for group decision analysis. Decision Analysis, 10(2), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decision with multiple objectives. Google Scholar
  25. KPMG International (2015) A New world of opportunity: The insurance innovation imperative. Accessed November 11, 2016, from
  26. Larry, K., Pikkel, R., Quinn, B., & Walters, H. (2015). Ten types of innovation: The discipline of building breakthroughs. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Mortensen, P. S., & Bloch, C. W. (2005). Oslo manual-guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  28. Pomerol, J. C., & Barba-Romero, S. (2012). Multicriterion decision in management: Principles and practice (Vol. 25). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  29. Porter, M. (2004). Competitive Strategy (2 ed.). Brasil: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  30. Rao, R. V. (2007). Decision making in the manufacturing environment: Using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  31. Roy, B. (2016). Paradigms and challenges. In Multiple criteria decision analysis (pp. 19–39). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Silva, P. A. (2014). Analysis of the insurance market through Porter’s five forces. Dissertation, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  33. Tidd, J., Bessant, J. R., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (Vol. 4). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Vargas, E. R., Bohrer, C. T., Ferreira, L. B., & Moreira, M. F. (2013). The research on innovation in services in Brazil: Current stage, challenges and perspectives. REGEPE-Magazine of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 2(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
  35. Znotinas, N. M., & Hipel, K. W. (1979). Comparison of alternative engineering designs. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 15(1), 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Priscila Aguiar da Silva
    • 1
  • Luiz Flávio Autran Monteiro Gomes
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Ibmec School of Business and EconomicsRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations