PRIORITIZING CRITERIA TO EVALUATE PROJECT SUCCESS: MODELING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) Empirical study in a Brazilian health organization

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Mar 28, 2022
Luciano Azevedo de Souza Helder Gomes Costa
Fernando Oliveira de Araujo

Abstract

Despite numerous attempts to systematize the evaluation of project success, the topic remains unaddressed, mainly because of the lack of appropriate models for dealing with the subjectivity associated with evaluation. This paper aims to contribute to this discussion by proposing a model for determining the relative importance of the criteria based on a multi-criteria technique (AHP). A core feature of the AHP is determining the relative weights of the criteria, considering the subjectivity associated with the problem. The proposed model was applied to a set of data collected through structured interviews from a sample of 54 respondents consisting of managers and project professionals in a given organization. The criteria with the highest priorities were 'learning opportunities' (20.4%), 'scope' (15.8%) and 'innovation' (14.1%). Unexpectedly, the criteria ‘cost’, ‘schedule’, and ‘scope’, although widely used in evaluating success, did not rank as most important. This proposed prioritization can be useful to top management when making decisions about the application of resources that contribute to the success of the projects in the organization, as well as to guide project managers as they decide what actions are necessary to address the most relevant aspects in the context of the organization.

How to Cite

Azevedo de Souza, L., Gomes Costa, H. ., & Oliveira de Araujo, F. . (2022). PRIORITIZING CRITERIA TO EVALUATE PROJECT SUCCESS: MODELING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP): Empirical study in a Brazilian health organization. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v14i1.913

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 1079 | PDF Downloads 669

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

analytic hierarchy process (AHP), muticriteria decision analysis (MCDA), project success, project success criteria

References
Abdullah, A.A., Rahman, H.A., Harun, Z., Alashwal, A.M., & Beksin, A.M. (2010). Literature mapping: A bird’s eye view on classification of factors influencing project success. African Journal of Business Management, 4(19), 4174-4182.

Acheamfour, V.K., Kissi, E., & Adjei-Kumi, T. (2019). Ascertaining the impact of contractors pre-qualification criteria on project success criteria. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(4), 618-632. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2018-0110

Albert, M., Balve, P., & Spang, K. (2017). Evaluation of project success: a structured literature review. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(4), 796- 821. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-01-2017-0004

Andersen, E.S., Birchall, D., Jessen, S.A., & Money, A.H. (2006). Exploring project success. Baltic Journal of Management, 1(2), 127-147. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/17465260610663854

Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337-342.

Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project success. The Project Management Journal, 30(4), 25-32.

Costa, H.G., & Correa, P. de S. (2010). Construction of an AHP-Based model to catch criteria weights in post-occupancy evaluation. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2(1), 30-43. Doi: 10.13033/ijahp.v2i1.71

da Silva, F. F., Souza, C. L. M., Silva, F. F., Costa, H. G., da Hora, H. R. M., & Erthal Junior, M. (2021). Elicitation of criteria weights for multicriteria models: Bibliometrics, typologies, characteristics and applications. Brazilian Journal of Operations and Production Management, 18(4). Doi: https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.2021.014

De Wit, A. de. (1988). Measurement of project success. Project Management, 6(3), 165- 170.

Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19–31. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600403

Keeney, R.L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives : preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press.

Koops, L., van Loenhout, C., Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Hertogh, M., & Bakker, H. (2017). Different perspectives of public project managers on project success. Engineering,

Construction and Architectural Management, 24(6), 1294-1318. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2015-0007
Mansell, P., & Philbin, S.P. (2020). Measuring sustainable development goal targets on infrastructure projects. Journal of Modern Project Management, 8(1), 1-22.

Montes-Guerra, M.I., De-Miguel, A.R., Pérez-Ezcurdia, M.A., Gimena Ramos, F.N., & Díez-Silva, H.M. 2015. Project management in development cooperation. Non- governmental organizations. Rev. Innovar, 25(56), 52-67. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v25n56.48989

Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D.P. (1988). Project success: definitions and measurement techniques. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Pollack, J., Helm, J., & Adler, D. (2018). What is the Iron Triangle, and how has it changed?. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(2), 527-547. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-09-2017-0107

Redda, Y., & Turner, R. (2018). Mapping the success dimensions of large oil and gas projects. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Rocha, P.M.P.M., Barros, A.P.D.A.P., Silva, G.B.D.G.B., & Costa, H.G. (2016). Analysis of the operational performance of Brazilian airport terminals: A multicriteria approach with De Borda-AHP integration. Journal of Air Transport Management, 51, 19–26. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2015.11.003

Rodriguez D.S.S., Costa H.G., & Carmo L.F.R.R.S. (2013). Métodos de auxílio multicritério à decisão aplicados a problemas de PCP: Mapeamento da produção em periódicos publicados no Brasil. Gest e Prod, 20, 134–146. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2013000100010

Rothstein, H.R., & Hopewell, S. (2009). Grey literature. In H. Cooper et al. (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (pp. 103-125). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Roy, J., Das, S., Kar, S., & Pamučar, D. (2019). An extension of the CODAS approach using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set for sustainable material selection in construction projects with incomplete weight information. Symmetry, 11(3), 1-24.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill International Book.

Šenitková, I., Burdová, E.K., & Vilčeková, S. (2010). Building environmental assessment system-weight determination. Proceedings of CESB 2010 Prague - Central Europe towards Sustainable Building “From Theory to Practice”. Prague: Czech Technical University.

Serrador, P., & Turner, R. (2015). The relationship between project success and project efficiency. Project management journal, 46(1), 30-39. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj

Shenhar, A.J., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of Project Success. Project Management Journal, 28(2), 5-13.

Yi, P., Li, W., Zhang, D. (2019). Assessment of city sustainability using MCDM with interdependent criteria weight. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(6), 1-20. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061632

Zagonari, F. (2016). Choosing among weight-estimation methods for multi-criterion analysis: A case study for the design of multi-purpose offshore platforms. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 39, 1–10. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.11.003
Section
Articles