Evaluation and ranking of multi-type projects with mixed multi-criteria cost/benefit and optimization of project portfolio selection

Karakiliç, S.; Arici, Y.; Oconnor, D.; Thümmel, A.

Growing Science » Journal of Project Management » Evaluation and ranking of multi-type projects with mixed multi-criteria cost/benefit and optimization of project portfolio selection

Journals

JPM Volumes

Volume 1 (8)
- Issue 1 (5)
- Issue 2 (3)

Volume 2 (13)
- Issue 1 (4)
- Issue 2 (3)
- Issue 3 (3)
- Issue 4 (3)

Volume 3 (17)
- Issue 1 (4)
- Issue 2 (5)
- Issue 3 (4)
- Issue 4 (4)

Volume 4 (24)
- Issue 1 (4)
- Issue 2 (8)
- Issue 3 (8)
- Issue 4 (4)

Volume 5 (20)
- Issue 1 (5)
- Issue 2 (5)
- Issue 3 (5)
- Issue 4 (5)

Volume 6 (20)
- Issue 1 (5)
- Issue 2 (5)
- Issue 3 (5)
- Issue 4 (5)

Volume 7 (21)
- Issue 1 (5)
- Issue 2 (5)
- Issue 3 (5)
- Issue 4 (6)

Volume 8 (21)
- Issue 1 (6)
- Issue 2 (5)
- Issue 3 (5)
- Issue 4 (5)

Volume 9 (35)
- Issue 1 (6)
- Issue 2 (5)
- Issue 3 (9)
- Issue 4 (15)

Volume 10 (68)
- Issue 1 (15)
- Issue 2 (21)
- Issue 3 (13)
- Issue 4 (19)

Volume 11 (24)
- Issue 1 (24)

Countries

Journal of Project Management

ISSN 2371-8374 (Online) - ISSN 2371-8366 (Print) Quarterly Publication Volume 10 Issue 4 pp. 703-724 , 2025

Evaluation and ranking of multi-type projects with mixed multi-criteria cost/benefit and optimization of project portfolio selection Pages 703-724 Download PDF

Authors: Semih Eren Karakiliç, Yasemin Arici, Declan Oconnor, Andreas Thümmel

DOI: 10.5267/j.jpm.2025.8.001

Keywords: Project Evaluation, Multi Criteria Decision Making, TOPSIS-MTPMMCBC, CRITIC Method, Mandatory projects, Project Portfolio Selection

Abstract: A majority of companies are involved in the planning and execution of projects. The number of projects that companies need to evaluate has significantly increased in recent years. This trend has various causes, such as the digitalization of corporate processes, diversification, or strategic positioning in the face of ever-changing market conditions. The characterization of projects into mandatory and optional, as well as the evaluation of these projects, can be conducted based on various mixed criteria, which may include both cost and benefit criteria. The limited resources of companies necessitate a critical assessment of projects. They must be ranked based on realistic and plausible criteria regarding their benefits and objectives of the company. In the literature, various approaches to project evaluation exist. Examples include financial assessment, the utilization of evaluation models considering risks, or even multi-criteria models that incorporate different aspects of projects into the evaluation process. We propose a robust, scalable, and easily calibrated multi-criteria evaluation model for project evaluation and ranking, encompassing evaluation criteria such as financial criteria measured by Net Present Value (NPV), Risk, Classification, Priority, Strategy, and Sustainability. To achieve this goal, the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution with multi type projects multi mixed cost and benefit criteria (TOPSIS-MTPMMCBC) is employed. The model is adapted to evaluate and rank optional and mandatory projects. An important feature of the projects in this study is that the criteria values of the projects can have negative or positive values. Particularly noteworthy is the increasing significance of sustainability as a key criterion for businesses, driven by political mandates. Consequently, a decision based on the criterion of sustainability will be important in the future and is implemented in the proposed model. The proposed research can be adapted to use a variety of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as multiple decision criteria. An objective calculation of the criteria weights for sample dataset was carried out using the CRITIC method, followed by a sensitivity analysis. Subsequently, the optimization of the project portfolio was carried out by combining an integer programming model with the proposed TOPSIS-MTPMMCBC method. An initial solution of project evaluation and ranking is conducted to demonstrate the applications.

How to cite this paper

 Karakiliç, S., Arici, Y., Oconnor, D & Thümmel, A. (2025). Evaluation and ranking of multi-type projects with mixed multi-criteria cost/benefit and optimization of project portfolio selection.Journal of Project Management, 10(4), 703-724.

Refrences

Abdel-Basset, M., Atef, A., & Smarandache, F. (2019). A hybrid Neutrosophic multiple criteria group decision making approach for project selection. Cognitive Systems Research, 57, 216-227. Abdellaoui, M. (2002). A genuine rank‐dependent generalization of the Von Neumann‐Morgenstern expected utility theorem. Econometrica, 70(2), 717-736. Adebanjo, D., Samaranayake, P., Mafakheri, F., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2016). Prioritization of Six-Sigma project selection: a resource-based view and institutional norms perspective. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(7), 1983-2003. 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. Amiri, M. P. (2010). Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert systems with applications, 37(9), 6218-6224. Demircan Keskin, F. (2020). A two‐stage fuzzy approach for Industry 4.0 project portfolio selection within criteria and project interdependencies context. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 27(1-2), 65-83. Dhara, A., Kaur, G., Kishan, P. M., Majumder, A., & Yadav, R. (2022). An efficient decision support system for selecting very light business jet using CRITIC-TOPSIS method. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 94(3), 458-472. Ding, Z., Wang, J., Zuo, J., & Gong, W. (2017). Key performance indicators for regional construction supervision systems in China. Engineering Management Journal, 29(3), 179-188. Eckhause, J. M., Gabriel, S. A., & Hughes, D. R. (2012). An integer programming approach for evaluating R&D funding decisions with optimal budget allocations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), 679-691. Espinoza, D., & Morris, J. W. (2013). Decoupled NPV: a simple, improved method to value infrastructure investments. Construction management and economics, 31(5), 471-496. European Commission (2019). Towards a sustainable Europe by 2030 COM(2019)22 of 30 January 2019. Reflection Paper. European Union (2022). Directive 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting (Text with EEA relevance). PE/35/2022/REV/1. Fishburn, P. C. (1990). Skew symmetric additive utility with finite states. Mathematical Social Sciences, 19(2), 103-115. Heidenberger, K., & Stummer, C. (1999). Research and development project selection and resource allocation: a review of quantitative modelling approaches. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(2), 197-224. Huang, C. C., Chu, P. Y., & Chiang, Y. H. (2008). A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection. Omega, 36(6), 1038-1052. Iamratanakul, S., Patanakul, P., & Milosevic, D. (2008, September). Project portfolio selection: From past to present. In 2008 4th IEEE international conference on management of innovation and technology (pp. 287-292). IEEE. Imperatives, S. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. Accessed Feb, 10(42,427). Jeng, D. J. F., & Huang, K. H. (2015). Strategic project portfolio selection for national research institutes. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2305-2311. Kumar, S., Kumar, S., & Barman, A. G. (2018). Supplier selection using fuzzy TOPSIS multi criteria model for a small scale steel manufacturing unit. Procedia computer science, 133, 905-912. Laury, S., & Holt, C. (2005). Further reflections on prospect theory. Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Research Paper Series, 06-11. Lewis, C. D. (1982). Industrial and business forecasting methods: A practical guide to exponential smoothing and curve fitting. (No Title). Li, H., Cao, Y., & Su, L. (2022). Pythagorean fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach based on Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Soft Computing, 26(6), 3001-3012. Liu, J., & Wei, Q. (2018). Risk evaluation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure public-private partnership projects in China using fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of cleaner production, 189, 211-222. 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. Mahmoudi, A., Deng, X., Javed, S. A., & Yuan, J. (2021). Large-scale multiple criteria decision-making with missing values: project selection through TOPSIS-OPA. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 12(10), 9341-9362. Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 3(4), 323-343. Ranjbar, M., Nasiri, M. M., & Torabi, S. A. (2022). Multi-mode project portfolio selection and scheduling in a build-operate-transfer environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 189, 116134. Raval, P., Sarkar, D., & Devani, D. (2022). Application of analytical-network-process (ANP) for evaluation of key-performance-indicators (KPI) for application of blockchain technology in infrastructure projects. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 7(6), 358. Remer, D. S., & Nieto, A. P. (1995). A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques. Part 1: Net present value and rate of return methods. International journal of production economics, 42(1), 79-96. Roy, P., & Patro, B. (2021). Financial performance analysis of NBFC-MFIs in India using TOPSIS and IV-TOPSIS. International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 6(5), 1423. Saxena, P., Kumar, V., & Ram, M. (2022). A novel CRITIC‐TOPSIS approach for optimal selection of software reliability growth model (SRGM). Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 38(5), 2501-2520. Schmidt, U. (2001). Lottery dependent utility: a reexamination. Theory and Decision, 50(1), 35-58. Solangi, Y. A., Tan, Q., Khan, M. W. A., Mirjat, N. H., & Ahmed, I. (2018). The selection of wind power project location in the Southeastern Corridor of Pakistan: A factor analysis, AHP, and fuzzy-TOPSIS application. Energies, 11(8), 1940. Tavana, M., Keramatpour, M., Santos-Arteaga, F. J., & Ghorbaniane, E. (2015). A fuzzy hybrid project portfolio selection method using data envelopment analysis, TOPSIS and integer programming. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(22), 8432-8444. Tavana, M., Khosrojerdi, G., Mina, H., & Rahman, A. (2019). A hybrid mathematical programming model for optimal project portfolio selection using fuzzy inference system and analytic hierarchy process. Evaluation and program planning, 77, 101703. Taylan, O., Bafail, A. O., Abdulaal, R. M., & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied soft computing, 17, 105-116. Taylan, O., Kabli, M. R., Saeedpoor, M., & Vafadarnikjoo, A. (2015). Commentary on ‘Construction projects selection and risk assessment by Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies’[Applied Soft Computing 17 (2014): 105–116]. Applied Soft Computing, 36, 419-421. United Nations (2005). 2005 World Summit Outcome. United Nations General Assembly, Sixtieth session Agenda items 46 and 120, A/RES/60/1. United Nations (2015). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 - 70/1. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Seventieth session Agenda items 15 and 116, 15-16301 (E). Vijayakumar, S. R., Suresh, P., Sasikumar, K., Pasupathi, K., Yuvaraj, T., & Velmurugan, D. (2022). Evaluation and selection of projects using hybrid MCDM technique under fuzzy environment based on financial factors. Materials Today: Proceedings, 60, 1347-1352. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior, 2nd rev. Wald, A., Spanuth, T., Schneider, C., Futterer, F., Schnellbächer, B., & Schoper, Y. (2015). Makroökonomische vermessung der projekttätigkeit in deutschland. Nürnberg: GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement e. V. Retrieved May, 8, 2018. Wang, J., & Hwang, W. L. (2007). A fuzzy set approach for R&D portfolio selection using a real options valuation model. Omega, 35(3), 247-257. Wang, X., Zhao, T., & Chang, C. T. (2021). An integrated FAHP-MCGP approach to project selection and resource allocation in risk-based internal audit planning: A case study. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 152, 107012. Wu, Y., Xu, C., Ke, Y., Chen, K., & Sun, X. (2018). An intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria framework for large-scale rooftop PV project portfolio selection: Case study in Zhejiang, China. Energy, 143, 295-309. Xu, C., Ke, Y., Li, Y., Chu, H., & Wu, Y. (2020). Data-driven configuration optimization of an off-grid wind/PV/hydrogen system based on modified NSGA-II and CRITIC-TOPSIS. Energy Conversion and Management, 215, 112892. Yu, L., Wang, S., Wen, F., & Lai, K. K. (2012). Genetic algorithm-based multi-criteria project portfolio selection. Annals of operations research, 197, 71-86. Zhang, X., Fang, L., Hipel, K. W., Ding, S., & Tan, Y. (2020). A hybrid project portfolio selection procedure with historical performance consideration. Expert Systems with Applications, 142, 113003.