Cargando…
Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats
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 established criteria. However, there...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8374518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34430267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101371 |
_version_ | 1783740133560811520 |
---|---|
author | Ramalho, Felipe Diniz Silva, Iara Sibele Ekel, Petr Y. Martins, Carlos Augusto Paiva da Silva Bernardes, Patrícia Libório, Matheus Pereira |
author_facet | Ramalho, Felipe Diniz Silva, Iara Sibele Ekel, Petr Y. Martins, Carlos Augusto Paiva da Silva Bernardes, Patrícia Libório, Matheus Pereira |
author_sort | Ramalho, Felipe Diniz |
collection | PubMed |
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 established criteria. However, there are different preference formats which experts can utilize: Ordering of Alternatives, Utility Values, Multiplicative Preference Relations, Fuzzy Estimates, Fuzzy Preference Relations, etc. Wherein, each prioritization method usually handles only one of these formats. Thus, the following question arises: how do we prioritize projects taken from portfolios evaluated in different formats? The proposed methodology presents a way to overcome this gap by achieving three main objectives. First, develop techniques that make it possible to crossover between preference formats and prioritization methods. Second, merge two portfolios of projects built applying different prioritization methods. Third, prioritize projects evaluated using different formats. The results of this study are universal and can be applied to replace any method of prioritization. In the specific case, the Mapping method is replaced by the Analytic Hierarchy Process and, then, by the Interactive Multicriteria Decision Making method (so called TODIM method). Techniques are also proposed to ensure compatibility between different preference formats and prioritization methods. • Prioritization of projects evaluated in different formats using the Mapping, AHP, and TODIM methods. • Providing fully consistent evaluation matrices. • Application of techniques to make different preference formats and prioritization methods compatible. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8374518 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83745182021-08-23 Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats Ramalho, Felipe Diniz Silva, Iara Sibele Ekel, Petr Y. Martins, Carlos Augusto Paiva da Silva Bernardes, Patrícia Libório, Matheus Pereira MethodsX Method Article 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 established criteria. However, there are different preference formats which experts can utilize: Ordering of Alternatives, Utility Values, Multiplicative Preference Relations, Fuzzy Estimates, Fuzzy Preference Relations, etc. Wherein, each prioritization method usually handles only one of these formats. Thus, the following question arises: how do we prioritize projects taken from portfolios evaluated in different formats? The proposed methodology presents a way to overcome this gap by achieving three main objectives. First, develop techniques that make it possible to crossover between preference formats and prioritization methods. Second, merge two portfolios of projects built applying different prioritization methods. Third, prioritize projects evaluated using different formats. The results of this study are universal and can be applied to replace any method of prioritization. In the specific case, the Mapping method is replaced by the Analytic Hierarchy Process and, then, by the Interactive Multicriteria Decision Making method (so called TODIM method). Techniques are also proposed to ensure compatibility between different preference formats and prioritization methods. • Prioritization of projects evaluated in different formats using the Mapping, AHP, and TODIM methods. • Providing fully consistent evaluation matrices. • Application of techniques to make different preference formats and prioritization methods compatible. Elsevier 2021-05-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8374518/ /pubmed/34430267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101371 Text en © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Method Article Ramalho, Felipe Diniz Silva, Iara Sibele Ekel, Petr Y. Martins, Carlos Augusto Paiva da Silva Bernardes, Patrícia Libório, Matheus Pereira Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats |
title | Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats |
title_full | Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats |
title_fullStr | Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats |
title_full_unstemmed | Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats |
title_short | Multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats |
title_sort | multimethod to prioritize projects evaluated in different formats |
topic | Method Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8374518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34430267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101371 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ramalhofelipediniz multimethodtoprioritizeprojectsevaluatedindifferentformats AT silvaiarasibele multimethodtoprioritizeprojectsevaluatedindifferentformats AT ekelpetry multimethodtoprioritizeprojectsevaluatedindifferentformats AT martinscarlosaugustopaivadasilva multimethodtoprioritizeprojectsevaluatedindifferentformats AT bernardespatricia multimethodtoprioritizeprojectsevaluatedindifferentformats AT liboriomatheuspereira multimethodtoprioritizeprojectsevaluatedindifferentformats |