Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats

Published: 27-01-2021| Version 1 | DOI: 10.17632/pcg6fz7hr5.1
Contributors:

Description

The prioritization of Research, Development & Innovation Projects is an essential step in the innovation management process. As a rule, it is carried out applying methods that allow one to process experts' preferences concerning each project according to criteria. However, there are different preference formats: Ordering of Alternatives, Utility Values, Multiplicative Preference Relations, Fuzzy Estimates, Fuzzy Preference Relations, to name a few; and each prioritization method processes only one of these formats. Thus, the following question arises: how do we prioritize projects taken from portfolios evaluated in different formats? This methodology presents a way to overcome this gap by achieving three main objectives: develop techniques that make it possible a crossover between preference formats and prioritization methods, merge two portfolios of projects built from different prioritization methods and prioritize projects evaluated from different formats. The results of this research are universal and can be applied to replace any method of prioritization. In the specific case, the replacement of the Mapping method by the Analytic Hierarchy Process method. The attached file contains the following data: evaluations of four projects in a utility-value format and evaluations of three projects in a multiplicative relation format. It also contains the calculations to obtain the value of matrix consistency, fully consistent matrices and the ranking of projects.

Files

Steps to reproduce

The necessary steps for reproducing the calculations are detailed in [1-3]. [1] T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation (Decision Making Series). McGraw-Hill, 1980. [2] F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Chiclana, "Multiperson decisionmaking based on multiplicative preference relations," Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 372–385, mar 2001. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00197-6 [3] A. Ishizaka and M. Lusti, "An expert module to improve the consistency of AHP matrices," Int. T. Oper. Res., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 97–105, jan 2004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3995.2004.00443.x