Evaluating Decision Making in Sustainable Project Selection Between Literature and Practice

Abstract

A robust project selection process is critical for the selection of sustainable projects that meet the needs of an organization or community. There are multiple factors or criteria that can be considered in the selection of the appropriate sustainable project, but it can be challenging to find sufficient depth of expert opinion to perform a strong evaluation of these criteria. Several researchers have turned to the sustainable project literature as a source of expert opinion to evaluate the criteria used in sustainable project selection and rank them based on importance using different multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodologies. However, using the literature as a source of expert opinion poses a different set of challenges and may not accurately represent the actual opinions of sustainable project subject matter experts (SMEs) and practitioners. In this study, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) methodology is used to determine the importance of project cost, project maturity, skill and experience, uncertainty, and technology information transfer as selection criteria using collected opinions from academic sustainable project experts and practitioners. The results are then compared with previous research that used the literature to rank these five criteria based on importance when selecting between multiple sustainable project alternatives. The results show that project cost is still considered the major driver of decision making in sustainable project selection by both the literature and practice. However, unlike the literature-as-experts approach, SMEs prioritize skill and experience and technology information transfer over project maturity and uncertainty. Project managers and decision makers can use these findings to best prioritize the types of challenges that may occur depending on inputs for the FAHP analysis.

Evaluation of the Transport Environmental Effects of an Urban Road Network in a Medium-Sized City in a Developing Country

“…BNP values can be utilized to establish the priority of relative importance among criteria, whereby the criterion possessing the greatest BNP is designated as the most important, and the criterion with the smallest BNP is regarded as the least important [115].…”

“…The alternative priority (A i ) can be determined by comparing the relative closeness (C i ) [121]. Because of its simplicity, ease of use, comprehensibility, computational efficiency, flexibility, transparency, and traceability in examining the performance of all determined alternatives, TOPSIS has been widely applied as a powerful technique for addressing practical MADM problems [115,116]. The calculation stages of TOPSIS (Figure 7) are described in detail below.…”

Оцінка Готовності Аграрних Підприємств До Впровадження Інноваційних Проєктів

“…Результати аналізу підтверджують це припущення. Так, протягом останніх років у фокусі вчених перебували такі питання: модель вимірювання успішності систем управління проєктом й оцінювання чинників впливу на успіх проєктів, зокрема особистісних рис менеджера й інформаційних систем [7][8][9]; вплив інфраструктури знань на можливість підвищення зрілості управління проєктами [10; 11]; обґрунтування доцільності використання нових двовимірних моделей зрілості управління проєктами [12; 13]; визначення зрілості управління проєктами та продуктивності будівельних проєктів [14; 15]; переосмислення моделей зрілості управління проєктами для енергетичного сектора [16]; зрілість управління проєктами та бізнес-досконалість у контексті індустрії 4.0 [17]; оцінювання прийняття рішень під час вибору сталого проєкту [18]; вимірювання культурної готовності до інновацій на основі шести основних питань (креативності, стимулів, процесів, лідерства, управління знаннями та ресурсами) [19]; обґрунтування нового інструменту прийняття рішень про рівень готовності фірми до інноваційних проєктів, що спрямований на допомогу менеджерам у прийнятті рішень про (не)доцільність запускати потенційний інноваційний проєкт [20].…”

Sustainability Assessment of a Low-Income Building: A BIM-LCSA-FAHP-Based Analysis

“…Over the last few decades, several MCDM methods have been proposed, each with its advantages and limitations [56]. Among them, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has the advantages of simplicity of application, repeatability, and consistency of results [57], and for that reason, it gained recognition, and currently is one of the most employed MCDM techniques by academics, and by industry in general [58][59][60]. The AHP method was developed by Saaty [61] and its approach is based on the fragmentation of the decision process into smaller parts, constituting a hierarchical system of objectives, metrics, and scenarios [62][63][64].…”

“…The AHP method was developed by Saaty [61] and its approach is based on the fragmentation of the decision process into smaller parts, constituting a hierarchical system of objectives, metrics, and scenarios [62][63][64]. The methodology converts qualitative judgments into a quantitative comparison through pairwise observations between criteria and priorities, helping decision makers to reach the best possible solution to an MCDM problem [58,60,64,65].…”