Task criticalness potential: A multiple criteria approach to project management

Helena Brožová; Jan Bartoška; Tomáš Šubrt; Jan Rydval

Kybernetika (2016)

  • Volume: 52, Issue: 4, page 558-574
  • ISSN: 0023-5954

Abstract

top
The paper proposes the method evaluating tasks criticalness potential, which has been analysed by various project management tools. The criticalness potential of tasks, as opposed to a simple differentiation of tasks to critical and non-critical using the CPM method, considers not only time, but also resource, cost and topological aspects of a project schedule. In the paper, the tasks criticalness potential is defined applying task criticalness indicators which are further used as input for three various multiple criteria decision models. These models enable taking into account the principal project success criteria, i. e. time, resources and cost. The tasks criticalness potential cannot be determined using one indicator or one characteristic only. A selected multi-criteria approach based on task criticalness indicators differentiates between tasks more and less threatening to a project. This paper suggests different multiple criteria approaches to the quantification of task criticalness potential, compares them and discusses their advantages and disadvantages.

How to cite

top

Brožová, Helena, et al. "Task criticalness potential: A multiple criteria approach to project management." Kybernetika 52.4 (2016): 558-574. <http://eudml.org/doc/286815>.

@article{Brožová2016,
abstract = {The paper proposes the method evaluating tasks criticalness potential, which has been analysed by various project management tools. The criticalness potential of tasks, as opposed to a simple differentiation of tasks to critical and non-critical using the CPM method, considers not only time, but also resource, cost and topological aspects of a project schedule. In the paper, the tasks criticalness potential is defined applying task criticalness indicators which are further used as input for three various multiple criteria decision models. These models enable taking into account the principal project success criteria, i. e. time, resources and cost. The tasks criticalness potential cannot be determined using one indicator or one characteristic only. A selected multi-criteria approach based on task criticalness indicators differentiates between tasks more and less threatening to a project. This paper suggests different multiple criteria approaches to the quantification of task criticalness potential, compares them and discusses their advantages and disadvantages.},
author = {Brožová, Helena, Bartoška, Jan, Šubrt, Tomáš, Rydval, Jan},
journal = {Kybernetika},
keywords = {project management; task threat; criticalness potential; multiple criteria evaluation; project management; task threat; criticalness potential; multiple criteria evaluation},
language = {eng},
number = {4},
pages = {558-574},
publisher = {Institute of Information Theory and Automation AS CR},
title = {Task criticalness potential: A multiple criteria approach to project management},
url = {http://eudml.org/doc/286815},
volume = {52},
year = {2016},
}

TY - JOUR
AU - Brožová, Helena
AU - Bartoška, Jan
AU - Šubrt, Tomáš
AU - Rydval, Jan
TI - Task criticalness potential: A multiple criteria approach to project management
JO - Kybernetika
PY - 2016
PB - Institute of Information Theory and Automation AS CR
VL - 52
IS - 4
SP - 558
EP - 574
AB - The paper proposes the method evaluating tasks criticalness potential, which has been analysed by various project management tools. The criticalness potential of tasks, as opposed to a simple differentiation of tasks to critical and non-critical using the CPM method, considers not only time, but also resource, cost and topological aspects of a project schedule. In the paper, the tasks criticalness potential is defined applying task criticalness indicators which are further used as input for three various multiple criteria decision models. These models enable taking into account the principal project success criteria, i. e. time, resources and cost. The tasks criticalness potential cannot be determined using one indicator or one characteristic only. A selected multi-criteria approach based on task criticalness indicators differentiates between tasks more and less threatening to a project. This paper suggests different multiple criteria approaches to the quantification of task criticalness potential, compares them and discusses their advantages and disadvantages.
LA - eng
KW - project management; task threat; criticalness potential; multiple criteria evaluation; project management; task threat; criticalness potential; multiple criteria evaluation
UR - http://eudml.org/doc/286815
ER -

References

top
  1. Almeida., A. T. de, 10.1002/qre.1415, Quality and Reliability Engineering International 28 (2012), 585-593. DOI10.1002/qre.1415
  2. Almeida, A. T. de, Ferreira, R. J. P., Cavalcante, C. A. V., 10.1093/imaman/dpv010, IMA J. Management Math. 26 (2015), 249-271. MR3365477DOI10.1093/imaman/dpv010
  3. Armstrong, M., A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. Tenth edition., Kogan Page, London 2006. 
  4. Bartoška, J., Brožová, H., Šubrt, T., Rydval, J., Incorporating practitioners' expectations to project management teaching., In: Efficiency and Responsibility in Education 2013 (R. Kvasnička, ed.), Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague 2013, pp. 16-23. 
  5. Bergatinos, G., Sanchez, E., 10.1023/a:1016300218643, Ann. Oper. Res. 109 (2002), 159-174. MR1929729DOI10.1023/a:1016300218643
  6. Bowers, J., 10.1016/0305-0483(95)00046-1, Omega - Int. J. Management Sci. 24 (1996), 37-46. DOI10.1016/0305-0483(95)00046-1
  7. Branzei, R., Ferrari, G., Fragnelli, V., Tijs, S., 10.1023/a:1016372707256, Ann. Oper. Res. 109 (2002), 357-372. Zbl1005.91010MR1929740DOI10.1023/a:1016372707256
  8. Castro, J., Gomez, D., Tejada, J., 10.1016/j.orl.2007.01.003, Oper. Res. Lett. 35 (2007), 791-798. Zbl1180.90030MR2361049DOI10.1016/j.orl.2007.01.003
  9. Castro, J., Gomez, D., Tejada, J., 10.1016/j.cor.2006.11.003, Comput. Oper. Res. 35 (2008), 2376-2387. Zbl1180.90031MR2585228DOI10.1016/j.cor.2006.11.003
  10. Chanas, S., Zielinski, P., 10.1016/s0167-6377(02)00174-8, Oper. Res. Lett. 31 (2003), 53-59. Zbl1036.90024MR1946735DOI10.1016/s0167-6377(02)00174-8
  11. Chen, C. T., Huang, S. F., 10.1016/j.ins.2007.01.035, Inform. Sci. 177 (2007), 2448-2458. Zbl1124.90013DOI10.1016/j.ins.2007.01.035
  12. Cho, J. G., Yum, B. J., 10.1080/002075497194426, Int. J. Project Management 35 (1997), 2737-2770. Zbl0942.90553DOI10.1080/002075497194426
  13. Clegg, D., Barker, R., Case Method Fast-Track: A RAD Approach., Addison-Wesley 2004. 
  14. Cooke-Davies, T., 10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00067-9, Int. J. Project Management 20 (2002), 185-190. DOI10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00067-9
  15. Cruz, S., García, J., Herrerías, R., Stochastic models alternative to the classical PERT for the treatment of the risk: mesokurtic and of constant variance., Central Europ. J. Oper. Res. 7 (1999), 159-175. MR1739489
  16. Doran, G. T., There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives., Management Review 70 (1981), 35-36. 
  17. Estévez-Fernández, A., Borm, P., Hamers, H., 10.1007/s00182-006-0058-x, Int. J. Game Theory 36 (2007), 149-176. MR2342157DOI10.1007/s00182-006-0058-x
  18. Ghomi, S. M. T. Fatemi, Teimouri, E., 10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00268-5, Europ. J. Oper. Res. 141 (2002), 147-152. Zbl0998.90009MR1925391DOI10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00268-5
  19. Gong, D., Rowings, J. E., 10.1016/0263-7863(94)00004-v, Int. J. Project Management 13 (1995), 187-194. DOI10.1016/0263-7863(94)00004-v
  20. Hartman, F., Ashrafi, R., 10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.12.003, Int. J. Project Management 22 (2004), 499-510. DOI10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.12.003
  21. Haughey, D., BOSCARD (Terms of Reference)., Project Smart 2000-2011. http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/boscard.html. Accessed 12 January 2011. 
  22. Hwang, Ch. L., Yoon, K., 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9, Springer Verlang, Berlin Heidelberg, New York 1981. Zbl0563.90038MR0610245DOI10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
  23. Jakubík, M., Propensity to criticalness in the PERT method, the expectation of time and distance of activities from project beginning., In: Proc. 29th International Conference on Mathematical Methods in Economics 2011 (J. Jablonsky ed.), Univ. Econom., Fac. Informat. and Stat., Prague 2011. 
  24. Jr., J. E. Kelley, 10.1287/opre.9.3.296, Oper. Res. 9 (1961), 296-320. Zbl0098.12103MR0143655DOI10.1287/opre.9.3.296
  25. Lenahan, T., Turnaround, Shutdown and Outage Management: Effective Planning and Step-by-Step Execution of Planned Maintenance Operations., Butterworth-Heinemann, An imprint of Elsevier, 2006. 
  26. Madadi, M., Iranmanesh, H., 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.01.006, Europ. J. Oper. Res. 219 (2012), 751-761. DOI10.1016/j.ejor.2012.01.006
  27. Malcolm, D. G., Roseboom, J. R., Clark, C. E., Fazar, W., 10.1287/opre.7.5.646, Oper. Res. 7 (1959), 646-669. Zbl1255.90070DOI10.1287/opre.7.5.646
  28. Martin, J. J., 10.1287/opre.13.1.46, Oper. Res. 13 (1965), 46-66. Zbl0137.39302MR0191650DOI10.1287/opre.13.1.46
  29. Mateo, J. R. San Cristóbal, Management Science, Operations Research and Project Management - Modelling, Evaluation, Scheduling, Monitoring., Gower Publishing 2015. 
  30. Mota, C. M. M., Almeida, A. T. de, 10.1007/s10479-011-0853-z, Ann. Oper. Res. 199 (2011), 361-372. Zbl1251.90260DOI10.1007/s10479-011-0853-z
  31. Roy, B., 10.1007/bf00134132, Theory and Decision31 (1991), 49-73. MR1118821DOI10.1007/bf00134132
  32. Roy, B., Mousseau, W., 10.1002/(sici)1099-1360(199606)5:2<145::aid-mcda99>3.0.co;2-5, J. Multi-criteria Decision Analysis 5 (1996), 145-149. Zbl0847.90002DOI10.1002/(sici)1099-1360(199606)5:2<145::aid-mcda99>3.0.co;2-5
  33. Saaty, T. L., 10.1007/bf03191825, Rev. R. Acad. Cien. Serie A. Mat. 102 (2008), 251-318. Zbl1177.62009MR2479460DOI10.1007/bf03191825
  34. Smith, M., Erwin., J., Role & Responsibility Charting (RACI)., Project Management Forum 2005. 
  35. Tofallis, C., 10.1287/ited.2013.0124, A Tutorial on Ranking and Choosing with Multiple Criteria. INFORMS Transactions on Education 14 (2014), 109-119. DOI10.1287/ited.2013.0124
  36. Weaver, P., A brief history of scheduling - Back to the future., myPrimavera konference, Australia 2006. 
  37. Wideman, R. M., Project and Program Risk Management., Project Management Institute 1992. 
  38. Williams, T. M., 10.1038/sj/jors/0430407, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 43 (1992), 353-357. Zbl0825.90400DOI10.1038/sj/jors/0430407
  39. Yakhchali, S. H., 10.1016/j.ins.2012.01.025, Inform. Sci. 204 (2012), 23-35. Zbl1250.90040DOI10.1016/j.ins.2012.01.025
  40. Yemm, G., Essential Guide to Leading Your Team: How to Set Goals, Measure Performance and Reward Talent., Pearson Education, Harlow 2013. 

NotesEmbed ?

top

You must be logged in to post comments.

To embed these notes on your page include the following JavaScript code on your page where you want the notes to appear.

Only the controls for the widget will be shown in your chosen language. Notes will be shown in their authored language.

Tells the widget how many notes to show per page. You can cycle through additional notes using the next and previous controls.

    
                

                
Note: Best practice suggests putting the JavaScript code just before the closing </body> tag.