A Hybrid Grounded Theory, Fuzzy DEMATEL and ISM Method for Assessment of Sustainability Criteria for Project Portfolio Selection Problems

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Industrial Engineering, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, School of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

In this paper, a set of sustainability criteria is introduced and a hybrid Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method is performed in order to identify and classify a set of criteria for selecting a project portfolio. Proposed criteria based on fuzzy DEMATEL technique in an uncertain environment  are assessed to determine the relation among all of the criteria. Moreover, ISM method is used to level the proposed criteria which are effective in the process of selecting the project or not. The results obtained from the proposed method demonstrates that profit, cost, soil, atmosphere, energy, waste and risk are the most effective criteria in selecting project portfolio, especially in construction project selection. Furthermore, environmental issues play an important role in the selection of project portfolio while social issues are not as much significant as others. Technical requirement, water, security, and public utility are less effective criteria in selecting project portfolio. Besides, biodiversity, social integration, and responsibility criteria are the most effected criteria in selecting project portfolio.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Article Title [فارسی]

ارائه روشی ترکیبی مبتنی بر نظریه داده بنیاد، روش دیمتل فازی و ISM برای ارزیابی معیارهای پایداری انتخاب و ارزیابی پروژه ها

Authors [فارسی]

  • زهرا جلیلی بال 1
  • علی بزرگی امیری 2
1 دانشکده مهندسی صنایع، دانشگاه شاهد، تهران، ایران
2 دانشیار دانشکده مهندسی صنایع، دانشکدگان فنی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
Abstract [فارسی]

در این مقاله، مجموعه‌ای از معیارهای پایداری معرفی شده و یک روش ترکیبی تصمیم‌گیری چند معیاره (MCDM) به منظور شناسایی و طبقه‌بندی مجموعه‌ای از معیارها برای انتخاب پورتفولیوی پروژه انجام می‌شود. معیارهای پیشنهادی مبتنی بر تکنیک DEMATEL  فازی تحت شرایط عدم قطعیت برای تعیین رابطه بین همه معیارها ارزیابی می‌شوند. همچنین از روش ISM برای سطح بندی معیارهای پیشنهادی که در فرآیند انتخاب پروژه موثر است یا خیر استفاده می شود. نتایج به‌دست‌آمده از روش پیشنهادی نشان می‌دهد که معیارهای سود، هزینه، خاک، جو، انرژی، ضایعات و ریسک در انتخاب سبد پروژه‌ها به‌ویژه در انتخاب پروژه‌های ساختمانی مؤثرترین هستند. علاوه بر این، مسائل زیست محیطی نقش مهمی در انتخاب سبد پروژه ایفا می کنند در حالی که مسائل اجتماعی به اندازه سایرین اهمیت ندارند. نیازهای فنی، آب، امنیت و مصارف عمومی معیارهای کمتر مؤثری در انتخاب سبد پروژه هستند. همچنین معیارهای تنوع زیستی، ادغام اجتماعی و مسئولیت پذیری بیشترین تأثیر را در انتخاب سبد پروژه دارند.

Keywords [فارسی]

  • انتخاب پورتفولیوی پروژه
  • پایداری
  • دیمتل
  • پروژه های ساختمانی

References

Allen, M., Alleyne, D., Farmer, C., McRae, A., & Turner, C. (2014). A framework for project success. Journal of Information Technology and Economic Development, 5(2), 1-17.
Alyamani, R., & Long, S. (2020). The application of fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in sustainable project selection. Sustainability, 12(20), 8314.
Anning, H. (2009). Case study: bond university mirvac school of sustainable development building, Gold Coast, Australia. Journal of Green Building, 4(4), 39-54.
Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999). An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 207-216.
Bernhardi, L., Beroggi, G. E., & Moens, M. R. (2000). Sustainable water management through flexible method management. Water Resources Management, 14(6), 473-495.
Bochini, G. L., Fransozo, A., Castilho, A. L., Hirose, G. L., & Costa, R. C. (2014). Temporal and spatial distribution of the commercial shrimp Litopenaeus schmitti (Dendrobranchiata: Penaeidae) in the south-eastern Brazilian coast. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 94(5), 1001-1008.
Bodea, C. N., Elmas, C., Tănăsescu, A., & Dascălu, M. (2010). An ontological-based model for competences in sustainable development projects: A case study for project’s commercial activities. Amfiteatru economic, 12(27), 177-189.
Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Levialdi, N., & Menichini, T. (2016). A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method to support materiality assessment in sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 121, 248-264.
Chen, Z., Li, H., & Wong, C. T. (2005). EnvironalPlanning: Analytic network process model for environmentally conscious construction planning. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(1), 92-101.
Camgöz-Akdağ, H. (2020). A fuzzy MCDM approach for project selection criteria prioritization in a big-four company: Evidences from Turkey consultancy sector. INFUS 2019, AISC 1029, pp. 796–803.
Daneshpour, H. (2016, June). The key drivers of sustainability. In 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering (EEEIC) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Deakin, M., Huovila, P., Rao, S., Sunikka, M., & Vreeker, R. (2002). The assessment of sustainable urban development. Building Research & Information, 30(2), 95-108.
Erdogan, S. A., Šaparauskas, J., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A multi-criteria decision-making model to choose the best option for sustainable construction management. Sustainability, 11(8), 2239.
Fernández-Sánchez, G., & Rodríguez-López, F. (2010). A methodology to identify sustainability indicators in construction project management—Application to infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecological Indicators, 10(6), 1193-1201.
Sánchez, M. A. (2015). Integrating sustainability issues into project management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 319-330.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., & Rodon, J. (2012). Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 149-159.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Griffith, A., Stephenson, P., & Bhutto, K. (2005). An integrated management system for construction quality, safety and environment: A framework for IMS. International Journal of Construction Management, 5(2), 51-60.
Goel, A., Ganesh, L. S., & Kaur, A. (2019). Sustainability integration in the management of construction projects: A morphological analysis of over two decades’ research literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117676.
Hatefi, S. M., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2018). Construction projects assessment based on the sustainable development criteria by an integrated fuzzy AHP and improved GRA model. Sustainability, 10(4), 991-998.
Hendiani, S., & Bagherpour, M. (2019). Developing an integrated index to assess sustainability in construction industry using fuzzy logic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 647-662.
Hueting, R. & Reijnders, L. (2004). Broad sustainability contra sustainability: The proper construction of sustainability indicators. Ecological economics, 50(3-4), 249-260.
Jones, B. (2006, May). Trying harder: Developing a new sustainable strategy for the UK. In Natural Resources Forum (Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 124-135). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Kannan, G., Haq, A. N., Sasikumar, P., & Arunachalam, S. (2008). Analysis and selection of green suppliers using interpretative structural modelling and analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 9(2), 163-182.
Khishtandar, S., Zandieh, M., & Dorri, B. (2017). A multi criteria decision making framework for sustainability assessment of bioenergy production technologies with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: The case of Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 77, 1130-1145.
Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Sustainable operations management. Production and Operations Management, 14(4), 482-492.
Lin, C. J., & Wu, W. W. (2008). A causal analytical method for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 205-213.
Martens, M. L., Brones, F., & de Carvalho, M. M. (2013). Gaps and trends in the literature of sustainability in project management: A systematic review merging bibliometrics and analysis of content. Revista de Gestão e Projetos, 4(1), 165-195.
Martens, M. L., & Carvalho, M. M. (2017). Key factors of sustainability in project management context: A survey exploring the project managers’ perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1084-1102.
Ma, J., Harstvedt, J. D., Jaradat, R., & Smith, B. (2020). Sustainability driven multi-criteria project portfolio selection under uncertain decision-making environment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106236.
Ma, J., & Kremer, G. (2015). A fuzzy logic based approach to determine product component end-of-life option from the views of sustainability and designer’s perception. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 289- 300.
Mulder, J., & Brent, A. C. (2006). Selection of sustainable rural agriculture projects in South Africa: Case studies in the LandCare programme. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 28(2), 55-84.
Okudan Kremer, G. E., Ma, J., Chiu, M-C., & Lin, T-K. (2013). Product modularity and implications for the reverse supply chain. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal. 14(2), 54-69.
Pandit, N. R. (1996). The creation of theory: A recent application of the grounded theory method. The qualitative report, 2(4), 1-15.
Paredes, G., & Herrera, R. F. (2020). Teaching multi-criteria decision making based on sustainability factors applied to road projects. Sustainability, 12(21), 8930.‏
Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualizing sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(6), 595–616.
Siew, R. Y. J. (2016). Integrating sustainability into construction project portfolio management. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(1), 101-108.
Shen, L. Y., Wu, Y. Z., Chan, E. H. W., & Hao, J. L. (2005). Application of system dynamics for assessment of sustainable performance of construction projects. Journal of Zhejiang University-Science A, 6(4), 339-349.
Shen, L., & Tam, V. W. (2002). Implementation of environmental management in the Hong Kong construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 20(7), 535-543.
Singh, M., & Pant, M. (2021). A review of selected weighing methods in MCDM with a case study. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 12(1), 126-144.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Sage.
Tam, C. M., Tam, W. Y. V., & Zeng, S. X. (2002). Environmental performance evaluation for construction. Building Research and Information, 30(5), 349–361.
Turlea, C., Roman, T. D., & Constantinescu, D. G. (2010). The project management and the need for sustainable development. Metalurgia International, 164(2), 121–125.
Thomson, C. S., El-Haram, M. A., & Emmanuel, R. (2011, June). Mapping sustainability assessment with the project life cycle. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability (Vol. 164, No. 2, pp. 143-157). Thomas Telford Ltd.
Wang, W. C., Weng, S. W., Wang, S. H., & Chen, C. Y. (2014). Integrating building information models with construction process simulations for project scheduling support. Automation in construction, 37, 68-80.
Warfield, J. N. (1974). Developing subsystem matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1, 74-80.
World Summit (2005). World Summit outcome. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ods/A-RES-60-1-E.pdf. at 6/5/2018.
Xing, Y., Horner, R. M. W., El-Haram, M. A., & Bebbington, J. (2009, September). A framework model for assessing sustainability impacts of urban development. In Accounting forum (Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 209-224). No longer published by Elsevier.
Zolfani, S. H., Pourhossein, M., Yazdani, M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2018). Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alexandria engineering journal, 57(1), 357-365.
Iranian Journal of Management Studies
Volume 15, Issue 3
July 2022
Pages 425-442

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics