A Simplified Criterea-Based Martix for Weighting Project Activities and Phases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47672/ijpm.2663Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the current paper is to set the elements of an objective matrix that could be easily used by project teams to assign weights to the different phases and activities of a project with minimal individual variance between the evaluators.
Materials and Methods: In the recent study, a field research approach was followed. Six evaluators were first asked to subjectively assign weights to six activities of a project. Later the evaluators were asked to answer ten predefined closed questions which covered the financial, resources, time and dependency on activities and technology as well as the prerequisites of the project activity. The results of the answers were used to assign weights to the activities by calculating the percent of the YES answers from the total number of the questions answered. Statistical analysis was performed to check whether the use of predefined criteria significantly affects the weights of the project activities and phases compared to the subjective weighting approach.
Findings: The higher standard deviation of the subjective evaluation activities dataset in comparison to the criterial-based evaluation dataset indicates the variability between the evaluators. In practical terms, this means that the criteria-based evaluation provides more consistent evaluation results by the different evaluators. This has been further proved by the statistically significant t-test results of activity ONE and activity TWO despite the none-significant results of activities THREE to FIVE.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: The findings of the current study showed the significance of the use of a predefined criteria in assigning weights to a project activities and phases. The author strongly recommends the adoption of the set criteria by the project teams for weighting project phases. The inclusion of these criteria in the commonly used project management software will indeed improve the project management process.
Downloads
References
Aldian, A., and Taylor, M.A.P. (2005). A consistent method to determine flexible criteria weights for multicriteria transport project evaluation in developing countries. J. East. Asia Soc. Transport. Stud. 6: 3948-3963. https://doi.org/10.11175/easts.6.3948
Ayan, B., Abacıoğlu, S., and Basilio, M. P. (2023). A comprehensive review of the novel weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making. Information, 14(5), 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050285
Bekele, W. B. and Ago, F. Y. (2022). Sample Size for Interview in Qualitative Research in Social Sciences: A Guide to Novice Researchers. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 4(1), 42-50. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2022.3
Bridgman, P.W. (1922). Dimensional Analysis. New Haven, CT, U.S.A.: Yale University Press.ISBN:9781498181297 https://archive.org/details/dimensionalanaly00bridrich/page/n13/mode/2up
Dawood, K. A., Zaidan, A. A., Sharif, K. Y., Ghani, A. A., Zulzalil, H., and Zaidan, B. B. (2021). Novel Multi-Perspective Usability Evaluation Framework for Selection of Open Source Software Based on BWM and Group VIKOR Techniques. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 1–91. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622021500139
Dhafer, A., Salih, M. M., and Muhsen, Y.R. (2024). Opinion Weight Criteria Method (OWCM): A New Method for Weighting Criteria with Zero Inconsistency. IEEE Access, 12, 5605–5616. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3349472
Dong, S.J; Jine, S.J; and Eui, H.K. (2005). Development of Integrated Materials Database System for Plant Facilities Maintenance and Optimisation. Key Engineering Materials, Switzerland: Trans Technical Publications 297-300: 2681-2686. DOI:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.297-300.2681
Dragan, P; Zeljko, S; and Sinisa, S. (2018). A new model for determining weight coefficient of criteria in MCDM models: Full consistency method (FUCOM). Symmetry 10(9), 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393
Fishburn, P.C. (1967) Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Set: Applications to Priorities and Assignments. ORSA Publication, Baltimore
Ginevicius, R. (2011). A New Determining Method for the Criteria Weights in Multicriteria Evaluation. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 10(06), 1067–1095. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622011004713
Ginevicius, R; Podvezko, V. (2005). Objective and subjective approaches to determining the criterion weight in multicriteria models. Proceedings of International Conference RelStat. Transport and Telecommunication 6(1) 133-137. https://etalpykla.vilniustech.lt/bitstream/handle/123456789/138753/ttj_Vol6_No1_133-137_Ginevicius.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Glassman, A., Giedion, U., and McQueston, K. (2013). Priority setting for health in emerging markets. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 2(3), 283–291. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer.13.12
Németh, B., Molnár, A., Bozóki, S., Wijaya, K., Inotai, A., Campbell, J. D., & Kaló, Z. (2019). Comparison of weighting methods used in multicriteria decision analysis frameworks in healthcare with focus on low- and middle-income countries. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 8(4), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0102
Odu, G. O. (2019). Weighting Methods for multi-criteria Decision-Making Technique. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 23(8), 1449. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v23i8.7
Project Management Institute. (2017).A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK Guide (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.ISBN:9781628251845
Serrador, P., & Turner, R. (2015). The Relationship between Project Success and Project Efficiency. Project Management Journal, 46(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21468
Seymour, T., & Hussein, S. (2014). The History of Project Management. International Journal of Management & Information Systems (IJMIS), 18(4), 233. https://doi.org/10.19030/ijmis.v18i4.8820
Shekhovtsov, A. (2023). Evaluating the Performance of Subjective Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making using a novel Weights Similarity Coefficient. Procedia Computer Science, 225, 4785–4794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.10.478
Simmons, A., Mavoa, H. M., Bell, A. C., De Courten, M., Schaaf, D., Schultz, J., & Swinburn, B. A. (2009). Creating community action plans for obesity prevention using the ANGELO (Analysis Grid for Elements Linked to Obesity) Framework. Health Promotion International, 24(4), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dap029
Swinburn, B., Egger, G., & Raza, F. (1999). Dissecting Obesogenic Environments: The Development and Application of a Framework for Identifying and Prioritizing Environmental Interventions for Obesity. Preventive Medicine, 29(6), 563–570. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1999.0585
Tofallis, C. (2014). Add or Multiply? A Tutorial on Ranking and Choosing with Multiple Criteria. SSRN Electronic Journal, 14(3). 109-119. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3762021
Yang, Y.-C., Park, C.-J., Kim, J.-H., and Kim, J.-J. (2007). Management of Daily Progress in a Construction Project of Multiple Apartment Buildings. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(3), 242–253.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hamid Ragab Orban
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
