رتبه بندی معیارهای ارزیابی پروژه ها به منظور انتخاب سبد پروژه به روش فرآیند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی فازی (FAHP) (مطالعه موردی: مجتمع دانشگاهی علوم و فناوری دریایی)

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد مدیریت صنعتی، دانشگاه آزاد نجف آباد، نجف آباد، ایران

2 استادیار دانشگاه صنعتی مالک اشتر، شاهین شهر، ایران

چکیده

امروزه با توجه به تغییرات شدید محیط پیرامون سازمانها و نیز به منظور غلبه بر ریسک های غیر سیستماتیک، بسیاری از سازمان ها برای رقابتی ماندن در محیط کسب وکار جهانی، اقدام به انتخاب پروژه هایی نموده اند که با چشم انداز سازمان مطابقت داشته تا بتوانند در خصوص مصرف بهینه منابع سازمانی، تصمیمات مناسبی را اتخاذ نمایند. از اینرو انتخاب سبد پروژه های سازمان که اهداف سازمانی را به شیوه ای مطلوب و بدون صرف منابع اضافی و یا نادیده گرفتن سایر محدودیت ها برآورده سازد، حائز اهمیت می باشد. در این پژوهش به منظور ارزیابی پروژه های سازمانی و اولویت بندی آنها، 35 معیار با استفاده از آخرین دستاوردهای علمی در این زمینه انتخاب و با استفاده از خبرگان سازمان، معیارها وزن دهی شده اند. به منظور وزن دهی به معیارها از فرآیند سلسله مراتبی فازی(FAHP) استفاده شده است.نتایج نشان داده اند که روش چانگ، روش مناسبی برای ارزیابی فرآیند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی فازی نمی باشد. با وزن دهی به معیارها بر اساس روش چانگ (1996)، وزن برخی از معیارها صفر شده است که این محاسبات لطمه بزرگی به فرآیند تصمیم گیری خواهد زد. به همین منظور روش جدیدی در خصوص رتبه بندی معیارها انتخاب شده و معیارها وزن دهی شده اند. این پژوهش در مجتمع دانشگاهی علوم و فناوری های زیردریا و در سال 1392 شمسی انجام گرفته است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Prioritizing the Project’s Assessing Criteria for Project Portfolio Selection with FAHP (Case study: Department of science& Marine Technologies)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Foad Darvishi Chadegani 1
  • Seyed Akbar Nilipour Tabatabee 2
1 Department of industrial management, Human science branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
2 Assistant Prof. Department of Industrial Engineering, MalekeAshtar Universityof Technology, Shahinshar, Iran
چکیده [English]

In order to make the right decision and remain competitive global business environment, many firms decided to select the project that is aligned with the organization’s vision to save resource of the firms. Hence, the enterprise project portfolio selection is very important, because it provides the organization with its goals in the desired manner, without using additional resources, regardless of other limitations. In this paper, 35 qualitative and quantitative decision criteria for project portfolio selection were defined. With the expert manager, relative weights were assigned to them by fuzzy logic and Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP).We illustrated that Chang’s method (1996) in FAHP is not suitable to calculate and prioritized the criteria. Then the new method was used to calculate the weight. This research was done in Department of Marine science and technologies on 2013.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Project Management
  • Project Portfolio Management
  • Project Selection Criteria
  • FAHP
  1. Akbari, M., & Mehregan, M.R. (2008). The use of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP)
    for organizational Projects Portfolio Selection: a case study. 5th international conference of industrial engineering, 1-19.
  2. Archer, N.P. and Ghasemzadeh, F.(1999). An Integrated Framework forProject Portfolio Selection. International Journal of Project Management, 17 (4), 207-216
  3. Artto, K.A, P.H .Dietrich. (2004). Strategic Business Management through Multiple Projects, The Wiley Guide to Project. Program, and Portfolio Management. Wiley, Inc.,Hoboken (NJ),1-33.
  4. Behzadian, Majid, Albadvi, R.B.K., Aghdasi, A.,M. (2010). PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 200, 198–215,
  5. Bellman,R.E.,Zadeh,L.A. (1970). Decision making in a fuzzy environment, Manag. Sci. 17 (4) ,141–164.
    1. Bozdag, C.E. , Kahraman ,C., Ruan, D. (2003). Fuzzy group decision making for selection among computer integrated manufacturing systems, Comput. Ind. 51 (1) ,13–29.
    2. Carlsson, C., Fullér, R., Heikkilä, M., & Majlender, P. (2007). A fuzzy approach to R&D project portfolio selection. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 44(2), 93-105.
    3. Chan, F.T.S., Kumar , N. (2007). Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. OMEGA Int. J. Management. Sci. 35 (4) 417–431.
    4. Chang, D. Y. (1996). Application of extend analysis method on Fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 96, 343–350.
    5. Chiou,H.K., Tzeng, G.H., Cheng ,D.C. (2005) . Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach. OMEGA Int. J. Management. Sci. 33 (3) ,223–234.
    6. Costa,R., Calabrese ,A., Menichini, T. (2013). Using Fuzzy AHP to manage Intellectual Capital assets: An application to the ICT service industry. Expert Systems with Applications 40 , 3747–3755.
    7. Dietrich, P., Lehtonen, P. (2005). Successful management of strategic intentions through multiple projects — reflections from empirical study. International Journal of Project Management 23 (5), 386-391.
    8. Dye, Pennypacker. (1999). Project Portfolio Management- Selecting and Prioritizing Project for Competitive Advantages. Center for Business Practices, USA,7
    9. ENEA, M., PIAZZA, T. (2004). Project selection by constrained fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy optimization and decision making Kluwer Academic Publisher Netherlands, NO.3,39-62
    10. Gardiner,P.D. (2005). Project Management: A Strategic Planning Approach.UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
    11. Huang, C.C., Chu, P.Y., Chiang, Y.H. (2008).A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection. OMEGA Int. J. Management. Sci. 36 (6) ,1038–1052.
    12. Kilincci, O., Onal, S.A. (2011). Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company. Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (8), 9656–9664.
    13. Kurtila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J. & Kajanus, M. (2000). Utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in SWOT analysis – a hybrid method and its applications to a forest – certification case. Forest Policy Economics, 41-52.
    14. Kwong, C.K., Bai, H. (2003). Determining the important weights for the customer requirement in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. IIE Trans. 35 (7) ,619–626.
    15. Laarhoven,P.J.M., Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 11, 229–241.
    16. Laosirihongthong, T., Somsuk, N. (2013). A fuzzy AHP to prioritize enabling factors for strategic management of university business incubators: Resource-based view. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, TFS-17806; No of Pages 13.
    17. Liou, J.J.H., Wang, H.S., Hsu, C.C., Yin, S.L. (2011). A hybrid model for selection of an outsourcing provider, Appl. Math. Model. 35 (10) ,5121–5133.
    18. Martino,J. P. ( 1995).  Research and development project selection. Presented at the Wiley Series in Engineering &Technology Management, New York.
    19. Martinsuo, M. (2012). Project portfolio management in practice and in context. Article In Press-JMPA-01465,10.
    20. Martinsuo, M., Poskela, J. (2011). Use of evaluation criteria and innovation performance in the front end of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (6), 896–914.
    21. Martinsuo, M., Lehtonen, P. (2007). Role of single-project management in achieving portfolio. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 56-65.
    22. Meskendahl, S. (2010). The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success — A conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management ,28, 807-817.
    23. Mohammadi B., M., & Iranmanesh, S.M. (2008). Choose & Managing Project Portfolio with Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process, Industrial management Journal, 4(7), 1-14.
    24. Morris, P.W.G, Jamieson, A. (2005). Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy. Project Management Journal.36 (4), 5-18.
    25. Mulcahy. R. (2009). PMP Exam Prep, Sixth Edition: Rita's Course in a Book for Passing the PMP Exam.(6th ed.). RMC Publications, Inc.
    26. Müller, R., Martinsuo, M., Blomquist, T. (2008). Project portfolio control and portfolio management performance in different contexts.  Project Management Journal, 39 (3), 28–42.
    27. Naghadehi,M.Z.,  Mikaeil ,R., Ataei, M. (2009) . The application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Iran. Expert Syst & Appl. 36 ,8218–8226.
    28. Nassif, L., Santiago, J., Nogueira, J. (2013). Project Portfolio Selection in Public Administration Using Fuzzy Logic, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 74 ,41 – 50.
    29. Nowak, M. (2013). Project Portfolio Selection Using Interactive Approach. Procedia Engineering, 57, 814 – 822.
    30. Özdag˘og˘lu, A., Özdag˘og˘lu, G. (2007). Comparison of AHP and Fuzzy AHP for the multi-criteria decision making processes with linguistic evaluations. Istanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi Yıl, 65–85.
    31. Pakdin Amiri, M. (2010). Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP
      and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications 37, 6218–6224.
    32. Patanakul, P., Milosevic, D. (2008). A competency model for effectiveness in managing multiple projects. Journal of High Technology Management Research,18, 118-131.
    33. Peng, J., Mok, H. M. K., Tse, & W-M. (2005). Credibility Programming Approach to Fuzzy Portfolio Selection Problems. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetic, 2523-2528.
    34. Qin, Z., Li, Z., & Ji, X. (2009). Portfolio selection based on fuzzy cross-entropy. Journal of
      Computational and Applied Mathematics, 228(1), 139-149.
    35. Shenhar, A.J, Dvir, D., Levy, O., Maltz, A.C. (2001). Project success: a multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34 (6), 699-725.
    36. Srivannaboon, S. & Milosevic, D. Z. (2006). A Two-Way Influence between Business Strategy and Project Management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(6), 493-505.
    37. Srivannaboon,S. ( 2006). Linking Project Management with Business Strategy. Presented at the PMI Global Congress. Proceedings, Seattle Washington.
    38. Teller, J., Unger, B., Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G. (2012). Formalization of project portfolio management: the moderating role of project portfolio complexity. International Journal of Project Management, 30 (5), 596–607.
    39. Turcksin,L. , Bernardini,A., Macharis, C.(2011). A combined AHP-PROMETHEE approach for selecting the most appropriate policy scenario to stimulate a clean vehicle fleet . Procedia Social and .Behavioral Sciences, 20, 954-965.
    40. Unger, B., Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G., Jonas, D. (2012). Enforcing strategic fit of project portfolios by project termination: An
      empirical study on senior management involvement. International Journal of Project Management 30, 675–685.
    41. Vidal, L.A., Marle, F., Bocquet, J.C. (2011). Measuring project complexity using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Project Management, 29,718–727.
    42. Voss, M. (2012). Impact of customer integration on project portfolio management and its
      success—Developing a conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management 30, 567–581.
    43. Wang, Y. M., Luo, Y., & Hua, Z. (2008). On the extent analysis method for Fuzzy AHP and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 186, 735–747.
    44. Yang, S., & Fu, L. (2013). Critical chain and evidence reasoning applied to multi-project resource schedule in automobile R&D process. International Journal of Project Management, JPMA-01504,12.