IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijitdm/v17y2018i04ns0219622018500207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementation of New Hybrid AHP–TOPSIS-2N Method in Sorting and Prioritizing of an it CAPEX Project Portfolio

Author

Listed:
  • Leandro Peçanha De Souza

    (Engenharia de Produção, UFF — Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói 24210, Brazil)

  • Carlos Francisco Simões Gomes

    (Engenharia de Produção, UFF — Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói 24210, Brazil)

  • Alexandre Pinheiro De Barros

    (Engenharia de Produção, UFF — Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói 24210, Brazil)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the results obtained by the information technology (IT) governance committee (ITGC) of a company undergoing a strategic realignment in the sorting and prioritizing of its portfolio of IT investment projects (CAPEX). The establishment of committees is one of the best practices in corporate governance, and it is often associated with the sorting and prioritizing of project alternatives, a problem typical of multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) and multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). One of the aids to resolve this problem was the development of a methodology in steps, and a new hybrid multicriteria method consists of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution-2 normalization (TOPSIS-2N) techniques. The application of the hybrid AHP–TOPSIS-2N model proved to be consistent and robust, generating two priority sorting possibilities aligned with the strategic situation of the organization and a range of improvements in terms of governance and processes for the ITGC of the company.

Suggested Citation

  • Leandro Peçanha De Souza & Carlos Francisco Simões Gomes & Alexandre Pinheiro De Barros, 2018. "Implementation of New Hybrid AHP–TOPSIS-2N Method in Sorting and Prioritizing of an it CAPEX Project Portfolio," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 977-1005, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijitdm:v:17:y:2018:i:04:n:s0219622018500207
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219622018500207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219622018500207
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0219622018500207?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hannu Kivijärvi & Petri Hallikainen & Esko Penttinen, 2012. "SUPPORTING IT IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS WITH ANP — SUPPLIER SCHEDULING FORe-INVOICING," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(03), pages 525-550.
    2. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    3. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    4. Ali, Syaiful & Green, Peter & Robb, Alastair, 2015. "Information technology investment governance: What is it and does it matter?," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 1-25.
    5. Dong, Qingxing & Cooper, Orrin, 2016. "A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group AHP decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 521-530.
    6. Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2013. "Robust multi-criteria ranking with additive value models and holistic pair-wise preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 169-180.
    7. Mehdi Keshavarz Ghorabaee & Maghsoud Amiri & Jamshid Salehi Sadaghiani & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, 2015. "Multi-Criteria Project Selection Using an Extended VIKOR Method with Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(05), pages 993-1016.
    8. Walczak, Dariusz & Rutkowska, Aleksandra, 2017. "Project rankings for participatory budget based on the fuzzy TOPSIS method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(2), pages 706-714.
    9. Greco, Salvatore & Mousseau, Vincent & Slowinski, Roman, 2008. "Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 191(2), pages 416-436, December.
    10. Ali Emrouznejad & Marianna Marra, 2017. "The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017): a literature review with a social network analysis," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(22), pages 6653-6675, November.
    11. Kou, Gang & Ergu, Daji & Shang, Jennifer, 2014. "Enhancing data consistency in decision matrix: Adapting Hadamard model to mitigate judgment contradiction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 261-271.
    12. Bilbao-Terol, Amelia & Arenas-Parra, Mar & Cañal-Fernández, Verónica & Antomil-Ibias, José, 2014. "Using TOPSIS for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-17.
    13. Roszkowska, Ewa & Wachowicz, Tomasz, 2015. "Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 920-932.
    14. Editors, 2014. "International Journal of Systems Science," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(12), pages 1-1, December.
    15. Chaudhary, Pandav & Chhetri, Sachin Kumar & Joshi, Kiran Man & Shrestha, Basanta Man & Kayastha, Prabin, 2016. "Application of an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in the GIS interface for suitable fire site selection: A case study from Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 60-71.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mehdi Rajabi Asadabadi & Hadi Badri Ahmadi & Himanshu Gupta & James J. H. Liou, 2023. "Supplier selection to support environmental sustainability: the stratified BWM TOPSIS method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 322(1), pages 321-344, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.
    2. Xiaodong Yuan & Weiling Song, 2022. "Evaluating technology innovation capabilities of companies based on entropy- TOPSIS: the case of solar cell companies," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 65-76, June.
    3. Kadziński, Miłosz & Wójcik, Michał & Ciomek, Krzysztof, 2022. "Review and experimental comparison of ranking and choice procedures for constructing a univocal recommendation in a preference disaggregation setting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    4. Olivier Cailloux & Tommi Tervonen & Boris Verhaegen & François Picalausa, 2014. "A data model for algorithmic multiple criteria decision analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 217(1), pages 77-94, June.
    5. Wu, Zhibin & Huang, Shuai & Xu, Jiuping, 2019. "Multi-stage optimization models for individual consistency and group consensus with preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 182-194.
    6. R. Pelissari & M. C. Oliveira & S. Ben Amor & A. Kandakoglu & A. L. Helleno, 2020. "SMAA methods and their applications: a literature review and future research directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 433-493, October.
    7. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2019. "Sigma-Mu efficiency analysis: A methodology for evaluating units through composite indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 942-960.
    8. Hurson, Christian & Siskos, Yannis, 2014. "A synergy of multicriteria techniques to assess additive value models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 540-551.
    9. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    10. Adrian Castro-Lopez & Javier Puente & Rodolfo Vazquez-Casielles, 2018. "e-Service Quality Model for Spanish Textile and Fashion Sector: Positioning Analysis and B2C Ranking by F-Topsis," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(02), pages 485-512, March.
    11. Huang, Wencheng & Shuai, Bin & Sun, Yan & Wang, Yang & Antwi, Eric, 2018. "Using entropy-TOPSIS method to evaluate urban rail transit system operation performance: The China case," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 292-303.
    12. Spliet, Remy & Tervonen, Tommi, 2014. "Preference inference with general additive value models and holistic pair-wise statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 607-612.
    13. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    14. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2017. "Heuristics for selecting pair-wise elicitation questions in multiple criteria choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 693-707.
    15. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2017. "Deriving rankings from incomplete preference information: A comparison of different approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 244-253.
    16. Silvia Angilella & Marta Bottero & Salvatore Corrente & Valentina Ferretti & Salvatore Greco & Isabella M. Lami, 2016. "Non Additive Robust Ordinal Regression for urban and territorial planning: an application for siting an urban waste landfill," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 427-456, October.
    17. Liu, Jiapeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Huang, Wei & Liao, Xianzhao, 2019. "Market segmentation: A multiple criteria approach combining preference analysis and segmentation decision," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-13.
    18. Ru, Zice & Liu, Jiapeng & Kadziński, Miłosz & Liao, Xiuwu, 2022. "Bayesian ordinal regression for multiple criteria choice and ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 600-620.
    19. Barbaros Yet & Ceren Tuncer Şakar, 2020. "Estimating criteria weight distributions in multiple criteria decision making: a Bayesian approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 495-519, October.
    20. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsi:ijitdm:v:17:y:2018:i:04:n:s0219622018500207. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijitdm/ijitdm.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.