IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijmdma/v16y2017i3p280-320.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic comparison of multi-criteria decision making methods for the improvement of project portfolio management in complex organisations

Author

Listed:
  • Darius Danesh
  • Michael J. Ryan
  • Alireza Abbasi

Abstract

The successful delivery of organisational objectives is significantly linked to the effective collection of project portfolios. There are many different multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods available which can be used to calculate examine and select project portfolio management (PPM) decision options. However, finding the most suitable one is a challenging task which requires a constructive review and comparison of existing PPM MCDM approaches. This study identifies the strengths and weaknesses of MCDM methods for assisting in PPM decision making. Of more than 100 methods identified in more than 1,400 publications, eight [analytic hierarchy process (AHP), analytic network process (ANP), data envelopment analysis (DEA), dominance-based rough set approach (DRSA), elimination and choice expressing the reality (ELECTRE), preference-ranking organisation method for enrichment evaluations (PROMETHEE), technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), and VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR)] that best suit PPM are down-selected and compared. Although none is ideally suited for the application to portfolio management, two standard ones (AHP and DEA) are shown to be the most suitable and are recommended for the further investigation and validation.

Suggested Citation

  • Darius Danesh & Michael J. Ryan & Alireza Abbasi, 2017. "A systematic comparison of multi-criteria decision making methods for the improvement of project portfolio management in complex organisations," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 16(3), pages 280-320.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijmdma:v:16:y:2017:i:3:p:280-320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=85638
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mahmut Baydaş & Dragan Pamučar, 2022. "Determining Objective Characteristics of MCDM Methods under Uncertainty: An Exploration Study with Financial Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-25, March.
    2. Dušana Dokupilová & Vladimíra Kurincová Čavojová & Vladimír Baláž & Eva Ballová Mikušková & Dagmar Gombitová, 2021. "Smart advice for better governance: applying expert methods to high-stakes decisions," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 48(3), pages 285-293, September.
    3. Maciej Nowak & Tadeusz Trzaskalik, 2022. "A trade-off multiobjective dynamic programming procedure and its application to project portfolio selection," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 311(2), pages 1155-1181, April.
    4. Merve Koçak Güngör & Bülent Bostancı & Neşe Yılmaz Bakır & Umut Doğan, 2022. "Investigation of Urban Design Approaches in Renewal Areas with Hybrid Decision Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Ran Etgar & Yuval Cohen, 2022. "Roadmap Optimization: Multi-Annual Project Portfolio Selection Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, May.

    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:ids:ijmdma:v:16:y:2017:i:3:p:280-320. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=19 .

    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.