11.4.2 Managing Priorities: A Key to Systematic Decision‐Making

Gilb, Tom; Maier, Mark W.

doi:10.1002/j.2334-5837.2005.tb00782.x

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The relative importance of all involved stakeholders is typically assigned by the project or product manager (Freeman, 1984). Several research papers (Gilb and Maier, 2005) attribute intuitively priorities values for stakeholders or classify them according to their importance. Grabisch (1996), the author argue that it is difficult to actually determine stakeholders' priorities, and suggest that a pair‐wise comparison using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980) can be used as a support.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using multi‐criteria analysis to prioritize stakeholders

Bendjenna

Charre

Zarour

2012

Journal of Systems and Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeMany problems in science and engineering fields involve decision making. Usually these decision‐making processes are based on several criteria that represent various experts' knowledge. Stakeholder prioritization is useful for assisting in decision‐making situations where various stakeholders have competing interests, resources are limited, and stakeholder requirements must be appropriately balanced. When these conflicts arise it is important to the success of the organization that it has prioritized each stakeholder according to the situation. To date, few researchers tried to resolve this question, mostly are based on intuitive and very simple reasoning methods which are error prone. The purpose of this paper is to propose a multi‐criteria decision analysis process to help decision makers when evaluating and prioritizing stakeholders.Design/methodology/approachIn this process, Mitchell et al.'s model is used for identifying criteria on which stakeholders will be evaluated and the fuzzy Choquet integral as an aggregation operator. This research also tested and discussed the proposal using a case study from Toulouse city subway.FindingsThe results show the applicability of this process and the effectiveness of using the fuzzy Choquet integral than a traditional multi‐criteria evaluation method for human subjective evaluation, or when criteria are not mutually independent.Research limitations/implicationsThe highly subjective nature of criteria weights and rapid elicitation can lead to questions of validity. Also, results are not always widely accepted.Originality/valueThe paper is original in considering the stakeholder prioritization problem as a multi‐criteria decision analysis problem; using a simple and well‐known model to classify stakeholders, i.e Mitchell et al.'s model; and in using Choquet integral as an aggregation operator which allows considering interaction between criteria.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using multi‐criteria analysis to prioritize stakeholders

Bendjenna

Charre

Zarour

2012

Journal of Systems and Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, when a verb, it can be defined as "the actions you take to organize your interests and work" (Ertmer & Glazewski, 2014, p. 56). Gilb & Maier (2005) stated that research prioritization is found when there are limited resources and obstacles encountered in the process. These limited resources include meeting the deadline, human effort, money, space, and any other resource notion imaginable.…”

Section: Research Agenda and Research Agenda Prioritizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On academic branding: A review of the factors influencing research agenda choice and prioritization in management

Wazir

El‐Bassiouny

Schmidpeter

2021

European Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to investigate the process of setting a prioritized research agenda that tackles the relevance gap in the management field as a method of academic branding for scholars. This is done by assessing the institutional and individual factors that affect research agenda prioritization for the management scholar. A conceptual approach, that is the outcome of theory analysis and the investigation of previous literature, is adopted. This results in a conceptual framework that tackles the relationship between the factors on one side and decision‐making styles on the other. The study has implications for scholars to keep in perspective a conceptualization of the factors that could influence their research agenda setting process. This study has two contributions. First, the delivery of a conceptual framework that is relevant to management scholars to help prioritize research agenda that contributes to academic branding, and second is the linking of decision‐making styles to these factors.

show abstract

“…A time or cost estimate, once it becomes a deadline or a budget respectively, is a 'limited resource'. One of the smartest ways to deal with limited resources is intelligent prioritization (Gilb and Maier 2005). Instead of implementing all your designs in a 'big bang' manner, and hoping to meet all the requirements and resource (time and cost) estimates, we suggest you deliver the project value a little bit at a time, and see how each of the designs actually works, and what they each actually cost.…”

Section: Prioritize Critical: You Will Have To Prioritize Your Most Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation: A Paradigm Shift towards Dynamic Design‐to‐Cost and Radical Management

Gilb¹

2012

INCOSE International Symp

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate estimation is impossible for complex technical projects, but keeping to agreed budgets, and deadlines is achievable by using feedback and change. In other words, rather than trying to improve the initial project estimates, the budgets and deadlines must be set, based on the value of delivery (not the cost), and then iterative re‐engineering of product and process must be used to stay within acceptable resource bounds. Or at least iteration must be used to get most of the expected value delivered, within the acceptable budgets and deadlines. This paper explains the background to this approach and discusses its use providing several examples.

show abstract

11.4.2 Managing Priorities: A Key to Systematic Decision‐Making

Cited by 10 publications

References 5 publications

Using multi‐criteria analysis to prioritize stakeholders

Using multi‐criteria analysis to prioritize stakeholders

On academic branding: A review of the factors influencing research agenda choice and prioritization in management

Estimation: A Paradigm Shift towards Dynamic Design‐to‐Cost and Radical Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About