评估项目成功的优先级标准:层次分析法建模

Luciano Azevedo de Souza, Helder Gomes Costa, Fernando Oliveira de Araujo
{"title":"评估项目成功的优先级标准:层次分析法建模","authors":"Luciano Azevedo de Souza, Helder Gomes Costa, Fernando Oliveira de Araujo","doi":"10.13033/ijahp.v14i1.913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nDespite numerous attempts to systematize the evaluation of project success, the topic remains unaddressed, mainly because of the lack of appropriate models for dealing with the subjectivity associated with evaluation. This paper aims to contribute to this discussion by proposing a model for determining the relative importance of the criteria based on a multi-criteria technique (AHP). A core feature of the AHP is determining the relative weights of the criteria, considering the subjectivity associated with the problem. The proposed model was applied to a set of data collected through structured interviews from a sample of 54 respondents consisting of managers and project professionals in a given organization. The criteria with the highest priorities were 'learning opportunities' (20.4%), 'scope' (15.8%) and 'innovation' (14.1%). Unexpectedly, the criteria ‘cost’, ‘schedule’, and ‘scope’, although widely used in evaluating success, did not rank as most important. This proposed prioritization can be useful to top management when making decisions about the application of resources that contribute to the success of the projects in the organization, as well as to guide project managers as they decide what actions are necessary to address the most relevant aspects in the context of the organization.\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":37297,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PRIORITIZING CRITERIA TO EVALUATE PROJECT SUCCESS: MODELING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP)\",\"authors\":\"Luciano Azevedo de Souza, Helder Gomes Costa, Fernando Oliveira de Araujo\",\"doi\":\"10.13033/ijahp.v14i1.913\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\n\\nDespite numerous attempts to systematize the evaluation of project success, the topic remains unaddressed, mainly because of the lack of appropriate models for dealing with the subjectivity associated with evaluation. This paper aims to contribute to this discussion by proposing a model for determining the relative importance of the criteria based on a multi-criteria technique (AHP). A core feature of the AHP is determining the relative weights of the criteria, considering the subjectivity associated with the problem. The proposed model was applied to a set of data collected through structured interviews from a sample of 54 respondents consisting of managers and project professionals in a given organization. The criteria with the highest priorities were 'learning opportunities' (20.4%), 'scope' (15.8%) and 'innovation' (14.1%). Unexpectedly, the criteria ‘cost’, ‘schedule’, and ‘scope’, although widely used in evaluating success, did not rank as most important. This proposed prioritization can be useful to top management when making decisions about the application of resources that contribute to the success of the projects in the organization, as well as to guide project managers as they decide what actions are necessary to address the most relevant aspects in the context of the organization.\\n\\n\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":37297,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v14i1.913\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Decision Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v14i1.913","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Decision Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管多次尝试将项目成功评估系统化,但这一主题仍未得到解决,主要是因为缺乏适当的模型来处理与评估相关的主观性。本文旨在通过提出一个基于多准则技术(AHP)的确定准则相对重要性的模型来促进这一讨论。AHP的一个核心特征是确定标准的相对权重,考虑与问题相关的主观性。所提出的模型被应用于通过结构化访谈从54名受访者中收集的一组数据,这些受访者由特定组织的经理和项目专业人员组成。优先级最高的标准是“学习机会”(20.4%)、“范围”(15.8%)和“创新”(14.1%)。出乎意料的是,“成本”、“进度”和“范围”这些标准虽然被广泛用于评估成功,但并没有被列为最重要的标准。这一拟议的优先顺序有助于最高管理层在决定是否使用有助于组织中项目成功的资源时发挥作用,也有助于指导项目经理决定需要采取哪些行动来解决组织中最相关的方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
PRIORITIZING CRITERIA TO EVALUATE PROJECT SUCCESS: MODELING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP)
Despite numerous attempts to systematize the evaluation of project success, the topic remains unaddressed, mainly because of the lack of appropriate models for dealing with the subjectivity associated with evaluation. This paper aims to contribute to this discussion by proposing a model for determining the relative importance of the criteria based on a multi-criteria technique (AHP). A core feature of the AHP is determining the relative weights of the criteria, considering the subjectivity associated with the problem. The proposed model was applied to a set of data collected through structured interviews from a sample of 54 respondents consisting of managers and project professionals in a given organization. The criteria with the highest priorities were 'learning opportunities' (20.4%), 'scope' (15.8%) and 'innovation' (14.1%). Unexpectedly, the criteria ‘cost’, ‘schedule’, and ‘scope’, although widely used in evaluating success, did not rank as most important. This proposed prioritization can be useful to top management when making decisions about the application of resources that contribute to the success of the projects in the organization, as well as to guide project managers as they decide what actions are necessary to address the most relevant aspects in the context of the organization.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process
International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Decision Sciences-Decision Sciences (all)
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: IJAHP is a scholarly journal that publishes papers about research and applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) and Analytic Network Process(ANP), theories of measurement that can handle tangibles and intangibles; these methods are often applied in multicriteria decision making, prioritization, ranking and resource allocation, especially when groups of people are involved. The journal encourages research papers in both theory and applications. Empirical investigations, comparisons and exemplary real-world applications in diverse areas are particularly welcome.
期刊最新文献
ADOPTION OF ANALYTIC NETWORK PROCESS TO STRENGTHEN HALAL INTEGRITY IN BROILER CHICKEN SUPPLY CHAIN APPLICATION OF THE AHP METHOD IN SELECTING BASEBALL PITCHERS ALGORITHM BASED ON PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION FOR HANDLING INCOMPLETE PAIRWISE COMPARISON SITUATIONS IN AHP EVALUATING THE SUCCESS FACTORS FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR: AN AHP- DEMATEL APPROACH CONTINUOUS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF EMPLOYEES USING AHP AND MODIFIED PUGH MATRIX METHOD: CONTRASTING WITH TOPSIS, PROMETHEE AND VIKOR
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1