View
229
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
1/18
20 Int. J. Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2013
Copyright 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Multicriteria decision analysis in programmemanagement: evaluation of education infrastructureprojects using the AHP
Christophoros C. Triantafyllidis*
Project Management Unit,
Intermediate Management Authority,
Region of Central Macedonia,
Leoforos Georgikis Scholis 65,
57001, Pylea, Thessaloniki, Greece
E-mail: ctriantafyllidis@mou.gr*Corresponding author
Jason Papathanasiou
Department of Marketing and Operations Management,
University of Macedonia,
Agiou Dimitriou 49, 58200, Edessa, Greece
E-mail: jasonp@uom.gr
Abstract: The fourth programming document for Greece through the years20072013 includes five Regional Operational Programmes (ROPs). One ofthem is the ROP of Macedonia Thrace. The priority axis seven description
is sustainable development and quality of life in the Central MacedoniaRegion and one of its goals is the construction and renewal of school buildingsin the Region of Central Macedonia. The current evaluation system is brieflypresented in this paper. What is attempted next is the order of importance ofthe criteria under question, according to the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)method demands, and the possibility of ranking the actions as a result of themethod implementation. In this paper, we use the Expert Choice software, tostudy the effects in the final score which will bring the indifferences betweenthe evaluation criteria. The whole approach aims at the optimisation of anysingle project selections method.
Keywords: multicriteria decision making; programme management; PgM;analytic hierarchy process; AHP; National Strategic Reference Framework;NSRF; criteria evaluation.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Triantafyllidis, C.C. andPapathanasiou, J. (2013) Multicriteria decision analysis in programmemanagement: evaluation of education infrastructure projects using the AHP,Int. J. Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.2037.
Biographical notes:Christophoros C. Triantafyllidis is a Civil Engineer andPhD candidate in the Constraction Equipment and Project OrganisationLaboratory of Civil Engineering department in the Aristotle Universityof Thessaloniki (A.U.Th.). He is working since 2007, alongside with theProject/Programme Management Unit of the Intermediary Managing Authorityof the Region of Central Macedonia. He is managing the Research andtechnical development infrastructures, Integrated projects of urban and rural
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
2/18
Multicriteria decision analysis in programme management 21
regeneration and Education infrastructure programmes, which are parts
of the regional operational programme for the Region of Central Macedonia,in the National Reference Strategic Framework (20072013). His scientificareas of interest include construction project and programme management,multicriteria decision making techniques and decision support systemsapplicable to them.
Jason Papathanasiou is a full time Lecturer at the department of Marketing andOperations Management, University of Macedonia, Greece. He holds a PhD inOperational Research and Informatics and a degree in Physics, both from theAristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. In the past he has worked as anExternal Lecturer at the Technical Institute of Technology in Thessaloniki andon the University of Western Macedonia teaching various courses. He has alsoparticipated in a number of national and EU funded (under FrameworkProgrammes 6 and 7) projects and has published his work in severalinternational scientific peer refereed journals and international conferences andworkshops.
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitledMulticriteria decision analysis in programme management: evaluation ofeducation infrastructure projects using the AHP presented at the 7th Meetingof Multicriteria Decision Analysis, Orestiada, Greece, 30 September to2 October 2010.
1 Introduction
The present paper illustrates the assessment system used for the purpose of incorporatingeducational infrastructure projects in the Macedonia-Thrace Operational Programme
(OP) in Greece which runs under the context of National Strategic Reference Framework
(NSRF, www.espa.gr). Firstly, project management (PM) as a concept is presented and
then the rationale of the OP management, of the priority axis (PA) and the thematic
priorities (TP) that constitute them is developed.
The TP represent the allocated programmes grouped under the PA of the overall OP;
the PA are the basic components of the strategy of an OP. The purpose of the
similar projects, the programme of a TP includes, is to conduce to the achievement of its
aims as set during the specialisation of the OP. The targets of a TP are considered to be
achieved when the absorption of all the resources allocated to it is ensured and at the
same time a substantial number of deliverables is successfully submitted. In order for the
aims of a TP to be realised, the projects to be placed in the programme should be as
ready as possible and the institutions that propose and carry them out should be asadequate as possible.
The procedure according to which the projects of the programme (as the TP will be
called for reasons of convenience from now on) is called Project/Action Assessment
and this is the first step for the successful completion of a TP. As anticipated by
the guide of the Management and Control System of the OPs (www.espa.gr) the
procedure for the action assessment is a multicriteria procedure, which however is not
met with some of the well-known methodologies of the multicriteria decision making
discipline.
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
3/18
22 C.C. Triantafyllidis and J. Papathanasiou
Table 1 Central Macedonia ROP 20072013
Central Macedonia ROP 20072013
Priority axes/Thematic priorities (Priority codes)
PA 01. Infrastructures and access services in the RCM
TP Title/Description
17 Railways (TEN-T)
20 Motorways
21 Motorways (TEN-T)
23 Regional/local roads
30 Ports
PA 04. Digital convergence and entrepreneurship in the RCM
TP Title/Description2 R&TD infrastructure (including physical plant, instrumentation and high-speed computer
networks linking research centres) and centres of competence in a specific technology
9 Other measures to stimulate research and innovation and entrepreneurship
PA 07. Sustainable development and quality of life in the RCM
TP Title/Description
44 Management of household and industrial waste
45 Management and distribution of water (drinking water)
48 Integrated prevention and pollution control
49 Mitigation and adaptation to climate change
50 Rehabilitation of industrial sites and contaminated land
51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection (including Natura 2000)52 Promotion of clean urban transport
53Risk prevention (including the drafting and implementation of plans and measures toprevent and manage natural and technological risks)
54 Other measures to preserve the environment and prevent risks
57 Assistance for improvement of tourism services
58 Protection and preservation of cultural heritage
59 Development of cultural infrastructure
60 Assistance for improvement of cultural services
61 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration
69
Measures to improve access to employment and increase sustainable participation andprogress of women in employment to reduce gender-based segregation in the labour
market, and to reconcile work and private life, such as facilitating access to childcare andcare for dependent persons
75 Education infrastructure
76 Health infrastructure
79 Other social infrastructure
PA 10.1 Technical assistance
TP Title/Description
85 Preparation, implementation, monitoring and inspection
86 Evaluation and studies, information and communication
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
4/18
Multicriteria decision analysis in programme management 23
This paper attempts to explore the use of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method,
which constitutes one of the most widespread tools of the multicriteria decision making
discipline, in the assessment of the projects to be placed in the Educational Infrastructure
Programme of TP-75 of the Central Macedonian Regional Operational Programmes
(ROPs) 20072013 (Table 1).
A retrospection of Programme Management (PgM) and of the recent observations
of the related research is initially presented. What follows is an analysis of the
structure of the Axis OP and their TP with an emphasis on Educational Infrastructures
of the Region of Central Macedonia. The assessment system is described with
the proposed projects criteria as is currently valid, the AHP method is presented and
finally the above mentioned method is implemented through the use of Expert Choice
Software, so that the criteria participation set by the management and control system in
the final result of the selection of the projects to be placed in the programme are
specified.
2 Programme management
Programme management is a continually evolving scientific field, which resulted from
the need of entities, such as private sector corporations, public sector institutions and
others to group and centrally manage similar projects, so that the best possible benefit
from their implementation is achieved. International standards such as the PMI (Project
Management Institute) standard for PgM under its second edition already, have been
published about PgM as well as guides, such as the APM (Association for Project
Management) introduction to PgM and books depicting the field developments through
theoretical approaches and through applications in the everyday practices of an institution
(OGC, 2007; PMI, 2008; APM, 2007). The relative scientific research is productive
enough as well (Brown, 2008; Reiss et al., 2006; Sanghera, 2008; Milosevic et al., 2007;
Murray-Webster and Thiry, 2000). The differences between PM and the procedures of
PgM were revealed with the evolution of the PM field. Therefore, PgM differs with PM
in that PgM does not only concern the set of projects constituting a programme, but it
also enters into subjects that appear in the interface of the projects included in the
programme. Such issues relate to risk management referring to the programme
development, meaning the possibility the development of one or more of the tasks of the
project endangering the feasibility of the final goal, or with the firm establishment of the
programme demands and standards to be followed, as for example an integrated system
of technical and financial information flows from each project to the project manager
(Prieto, 2008).The differences between a project and a programme, according to Pellegrinelli (1997)
are that the programme does not usually have a precisely set of completion schedule, is
linearly developed in line with the institution demands (it can add or subtract projects
according to the demands each time), requires the management of multiple projects to be
delivered, focuses on the achievement of strategic goals not only for a specific product
and its manager is in charge of and coordinates the actions of the separate project
managers.
The features of a programme are the following:
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
5/18
24 C.C. Triantafyllidis and J. Papathanasiou
a In a programme tasks not included in each separate project can be subsumed. In a
settlement construction programme for instance, most tasks relate to the constructionof buildings, but there are other activities that fall into the programme as well, such
as road asphalting, tree plantings and so on.
b The programme constitutes a means of fulfilment of the strategic goals of the
institution that forms it: the good completion of the projects of the TP that belong to
a broader OP also means the achievement of the set of its goals, which is the
absorption of the funds with a simultaneous creation of the infrastructures or actions
that have been set.
c A project that is placed in a programme can bring a substantial benefit on its own,
but it also cumulatively contributes to the total benefit of the programme.
The object of PgM nowadays has largely evolved on the grounds of industrial,
telecommunications, informatics and defence projects (Lycett et al., 2004; Pellegrinelli,2011; Artto et al., 2009; Thiry, 2002, 2004) while the bibliography concerning the
Construction PgM is less expansive (Thomsen, 2008; Shehu and Akintove, 2009).
Despite the relatively small participation it has been proved that the PM methodologies
can be expanded to programmes concerning construction projects and the exploration of
the implementation of its different parameters, such as the organisation, the execution of
the planning the technical standards and requirements, the participants involvement, the
specification of the items to be delivered and so on would be interesting.
If, as stated above, the relating research on matters of construction PM is not
particularly extensive, the bibliography relating to OPs is even smaller. More precisely
Mavrotas et al. (2005) dealt with the cash-flow prediction models in OPs with emphasis
on Information Society which referred to informatics actions, while Ipsilandis et al.
(2008) researched on the evaluation of an OP through the use of MUSA multicriteriamethod. These works were based upon the OPs of the third managing period 20002006.
Today we are going through the fourth programme period for Greece, which is widely
known as NSRF, 20072013 or ESPA from the Greek alphabet initials. The way the
OPs are structured will be dealt with in the following chapter.
3 Operational programmes of the 20072013 period (NSRF) the CentralMacedonia ROP
An OP generally constitutes the specialisation document of the development strategy
of Greece by using a set of axis and TP that act as sub-programmes. The OP
NSRF, 20072013 specifically constitutes the document referring to the
programming of the EU. Financial funds, which are going to co-finance actions
and projects that were proposed to the Ministry of Finance by social
and financial partners, regional and peripheral operators and various ministries
(http://www.espa.gr/en/Pages/staticWhatIsESPA).
The operators proposals were under public discussion, which took place through four
national developmental conferences and which led to the configuration of the NSRF
20072013 together with the actions and the political choices in national and European
level and the studies and the quantitative items that were carried out.
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
6/18
Multicriteria decision analysis in programme management 25
According to the NSRF document the strategic planning of the country for the period
20072013 will be specialised in eight sectoral OPs, which will be carried out by
ministries, five ROP, that will be executed in the limits of the territorial units of the five
regions of the country, and 12 programmes of territorial cooperation.
The ROP are the following:
1 Macedonia-Thrace
2 Western Greece-Peloponnesus-Ionian Islands
3 Crete-Southern Aegean
4 Thessalia Sterea Ellada Ipiros
5 Attikis.
The suggested interventions for each ROP are differentiated based on the fact that each
region belongs to a different category. So, it is suggestively referred that the region of
Central Macedonia, which is a part of the wider region of Macedonia-Thrace, falls into
the target of Convergence-Intermediary support-phasing out, where EU regions with a
lower per capita income GNP than the average 75% of the EU 15 GNP are included, the
region of Peloponnesus (today called Western Greece-Peloponnesus-Southern Aegean)
with a GNP rate smaller than the 75% of the EU average and which belongs to the target
Convergence, while the region of Southern Aegean (today in the Region of
Crete-southern Aegean), which has a GNP per capita income larger than the 75% of
the EU 15 GNP and falls into the target Competitiveness and Employment
(http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/region/index_el.htm).
What is stated above shows that all the regions of the country do not sharethe same needs in actions and projects which are to be subsumed in ROPs. However,
according to the NSRF document which we referred above, all regions should
organise their projects in such a way so that a minimum degree of interventions (shared
body, as referred to in the document) is covered, such as social infrastructures, health
and social solidarity infrastructures, cultural actions, projects on improvement of
accessibility and of surrounding regional scale and the projects related to viable urban
evolution.
Focusing on the Macedonia-Thrace ROP 20072013, according to the formal
document it consists of three parts: the Eastern-Macedonia-Thrace OP, the Central
Macedonia OP and the Western Macedonia OP. The present research was conducted in
projects assessed according to the Management and Control System in the sub-sector
today of Central Macedonia. The Central Macedonian OP consists of four PA. According
to the terminology dictionary of the NSRF a PA is a priority of the strategy in thecontext of an OP that has specific measurable targets and includes a group of actions
relating to one another (http://www.espa.gr/el/Pages/Dictionary in Greek). If
we attempt to interpret the above definition, we can conclude that all PA comprise the
hyper-programmes which comprise the OP and the action groups or the
TP where action in the NSRF terminology means project comprise the partial
programmes which conduce to the OP target achievement through their adequate
selection of projects.
The PA of the Central Macedonian ROP were named as follows:
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
7/18
26 C.C. Triantafyllidis and J. Papathanasiou
1 PA-1 Infrastructures and Accessibility Services in CMR
2 PA-2 Digital Convergence and Enterpreneurship in CMR
3 PA-3 Viable Evolution and Quality of Life in CMR
4 PA-4 Technical Application Support in CMR.
The four in all PA are specialised in 89 overall intervention categories or TP, to which
there was an earlier mention. Each TP groups projects and actions of a similar nature.
So, the differentiation of the projects of each TP takes place according to their kind
(construction road projects, cultural actions and so on) and not according to their
geographical and spatial distribution. The TP that was the sample for the object of the
present assignment is the TP-75 entitled Educational Infrastructures, which belongs to
PA-3 Viable Evolution and Quality of Life in CMR (Table 1).According to the extract of the programme that concerns the CMR the targets set in
the field of the Educational Infrastructures for Central Macedonia deal with the
improvement of the existing infrastructures and the creation of a new building reserve in
the sectors of primary, secondary and tertiary education and also in the sector of
vocational education and lifelong learning, the improvement of the technical education
infrastructures and finally the formation of libraries and laboratories and the networking
of educational units. For this reason there was a predicted amount of 119.5 million for
the specific programme (Educational Infrastructures).
The action management of the OP Macedonia-Thrace that concern Central
Macedonia has been assigned to the Intermediary Managing Authority (IMA) of CMR.
The IMA CMR is a service that was introduced after a Joint Ministerial Decision of the
Internal Affairs Minister and the Minister of Finance and constitutes the managingoperator of the programme, which directly comes under the General Secretary of the
Central Macedonian Region. Actions fulfilled in the administrative limits of the Central
Macedonian region in the programming period 20072013 are assigned in IMA CMR.
The IMA CMR consists of five units according to Figure 1 and described below:
1 the A1 Unit, which is responsible for the scheduling and assessment of the sum of
the ROP for Central Macedonia
2 the A2 Unit, which has the duties of Scheduling and Assessment of the
actions/projects that are proposed to be subsumed in the TP of ROP by the
competent body
3 the B Unit, which monitors and manages the subsumed actions in each TP
4 the C Unit, which carries out pre assessment controls and on-the-spot checking of the
executed projects and
5 the D Unit, which bears supportive and organisational duties.
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
8/18
Multicriteria decision analysis in programme management 27
Figure 1 Central Macedonia Region IMA organisational structure(see online versionfor colours)
Source From http://www.pepkm.gr/
4 Methodology for action assessment for programme incorporation
After the creation of IMA CMR for the purpose of managing and controlling of the
Central Macedonian ROP and after the definition of the PA and the intervention
categories that have previously been mentioned, the IMA CMR asks from the Ministry of
Finance via a document the allocation of the amount that is anticipated by the programme
for each TP.
Concerning the case examined in the present research, after the allocation of a
specific amount by the Ministry of Finance for the TP-75 (Educational Infrastructures in
CMR), the A2 Unit of the IMA releases and publicises an invitation to all potential
beneficiaries for the submission of proposals. Potential beneficiaries are the operators
with a responsibility to execute the programme projects of the TP-75, for the pre-schooleducation projects and for primary and secondary education projects, for example.
Responsible operators for their construction are the CMR municipalities and prefectures.
Following the information and documentary that are published in the IMA CMR
website (www.pepkm.gr) and are accessible to every interesting part, the beneficiaries
submit their proposals, which should be assessed and judged in standard time limits to
see if they are suitable for programme incorporation. In case the available budget of the
Invitation is exhausted the invitation closes and no extra proposal is admitted (there is
always an overbooking margin of about 10% of the originally disposed budget).
According to the Management and Auditing of Part-Financing Projects Guide, 2nd
edition (2010, in Greek), the assessment procedure is carried out by a three-member
committee of the ROP CMR and has as the person in charge one of the A2 staff for the
action assessment and members of the B (Management and Control) and C (on-the-spotVerifications) units staff in the role of advisors. The assessment procedure is described in
detail in the second edition of the management and control guiding system of the NSRF
as well as in the relating supportive archives (check lists).
Briefly, the assessment is initially based upon the examination of the thoroughness of
the details of the examined proposals (technical data sheets, managing adequacy of the
beneficiary, standard accompanying documents, existence of studies, etc.) and the
comparative assessment is the next stage. The comparative assessment of the proposals is
based on the following group of criteria:
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
9/18
28 C.C. Triantafyllidis and J. Papathanasiou
1 criteria concerning the thoroughness and clarity of the proposal, such as the
thoroughness and clarity of the description, the extensionality of the schedule andbudget
2 criteria concerning the observance of the national and the community rules
concerning the works contract, studies, provisions and services referring to the
environment, the promotion of equal opportunities, the accessibility of disabled
people and so on
3 criteria concerning the purposefulness of the action, such as its contribution to the
achievement of the Programme targets, its efficiency, its synergy and its
complementarity to other actions and so on
4 criteria concerning the maturity of the action referring to the level of readiness of the
studies and the managing actions required (the issuing of a licence etc).
According to the above mentioned guide of the management and control system, the steps
followed during the assessment of an action (project) are the following:
Step 1 analysis, specialisation and adjustment of the selection criteria
Step 2 definition of the way of assessing the criteria, which takes place on the grounds
of the following practices:
1 binary grading (Yes/No)
2 exclusion on the basis of the criteria (all criteria need to take Yes as an
answer for eligibility)
3 quantification of the prices Yes/No
4 grading of some of the criteria and institution of the limits for positiveassessment after each criterion or group of criteria
5 calculating factors after each criterion
6 through whichever of the above combinations.
Step 3 way of combining the grading on a level of criteria and the extraction of the
final conclusion of the assessment.
More analytically:
It is determined per level of the category of the criteria which and how many should
in an obligatory manner take positive grading, when the binary grading system is
used (Yes/No)
In the case that multiple grading is used for some of the criteria the limit should be
defined according to which it will be compared to the synthesis of the prices and the
criteria that allow of multiple prices, for instance exclusion of proposals with a grade
under 65% of the highest marked proposal. A proposal is positively assessed when it
is positively assessed or above the threshold of all categories of criteria.
At the end of the comparative assessment a proposal gets a grade as a synthesis of the
grading of the partial categories, that is the completeness, the observance of the national
and community rules, the purposefulness and the maturity of the project to be proposed.
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
10/18
Multicriteria decision analysis in programme management 29
In the case that the project under assessment is positively judged and with the
provision that there is an available budget from the invitation, then the subsumption
procedure of the action (project) in the programme begins.
5 The AHP method and the Expert Choice
Software
The methodology used for the specific application is the AHP, which one of the most
widespread and cited in bibliography methods in the field of the multicriteria decision
making (Saaty, 1994; Forman and Gass, 2001; Vaidya and Kumar, 2006; Dolan, 2008;
Abu Zarhan, 2011), despite its severe criticism from time to time (Belton and Stewart,
2002; Bana e Costa and Vansnick, 2008). AHP is based upon the hierarchical structure of
the elements in the decision making process and in the expression of the preferences of
the decision makers through binary comparisons. The solution of a problem following theAHP method has four stages (Bhushan and Rai, 2004):
1 the hierarchical structure of the problem
2 the gathering of the decision makers preferences on relation to criteria, sub-criteria
and alternatives
3 the estimation of the relative priorities of the decision elements
4 the combination of the priorities (weights) that lead to the assessment of the
alternatives.
The preferences of the decision makers are expressed with the use of a nine point scale,
with a fluctuation of the preferences from 1, which indicates the equal preference among
alternatives, up to 9, which indicates the complete prevalence of one of the twoalternatives. In-between rates in the climax indicate the shadings of the preferences, while
fractional rates are related to converse preferences. In each phase of the pair of
comparisons the consistency index C1 is estimated, which indicates the inconsistency of
the preferences and the stability of the estimations that have been made. The calculation
of the C1 index is based on the finding of the main eigenvalues of the records created in
the binary comparisons. As consistent are considered those judgements that decide if
the C1 is lower than 10% (0.1).
The software used in the specific assignment is Expert Choice
ver.11
(www.expertchoice.com), which constitutes a system supporting the analysis, synthesis
and the support of a multiple criteria decision. Through this software the possibility of
three different ways of expressing comparisons is made possible:
1 importance, when the criteria are compared to one another
2 preference, when alternative solutions are compared
3 possibility, when result possibilities are compared.
Depending on the criteria and the alternative types, the comparisons can also be verbal,
graphical or numerical. The software gives us the chance to exchange data through
their incorporation in Microsoft Access or SQL server databases and the support of SQL
models (Triantafyllidis et al., 2007).
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
11/18
30 C.C. Triantafyllidis and J. Papathanasiou
6 The AHP Method application in the assessment criteria of the CMR
projects of the Programme
The object of the present research is the exploration of the significance of the criteria
used for the incorporation of the projects in the programme Educational Infrastructures
(TP-75) of the Central Macedonian ROP. In this way we attempt to homogenise the
criteria and to use them in a unified manner in contrast to the complex way of the
comparative assessment used today.
For the above reason the AHP method was applied with the use of the Expert Choice
and the problem was structured in three levels:
1 the first level concerns the purpose of the research and deals with the definition of
the weights with which the groups of criteria participate in the final assessment
2 the second level concerns the groups of criteria according to the managing andcontrol system
3 the third level concerns the partially examined criteria per group.
The three levels of the method are shown in the following diagram as it comes out of the
Expert Choice
software (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Assessment criteria for project selection (see online version for colours)
The goal is to find the weight of the criteria for the final assessment of the actions; this is
pictured at the first level. At the second level the four groups of the criteria are examined
and from each group the partial criteria for the selection of the action are branched.
The way the importance of the criteria was signified took place through the
combination of the opinions of the experienced members of the ROP CMR. The grading
followed the nine-point scale (from 1 to 9) and its results were entered in the software
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
12/18
Multicriteria decision analysis in programme management 31
and experienced members of the ROP CMR staff with a long service in the field of the
management of OPs participated in the formation of preferences.
The table that resulted for the basic group of the criteria (second level), where the
thoroughness and the clarity of the project, the observance of the national and European
Law, the project utility and maturity (Figure 2) is as follows. In this table we observe that
the the observance of the national and European Law is deemed a little more important
than the thoroughness and clarity of the project. In particular it is graded with a 2.0,
which is depicted with red in the table resulting from the software. Following the same
train of thought the comparative grading of the rest of the criteria was set. As shown in
the table, the the project utility was deemed of the same importance with the
observance of the national and the European Law as well as the project maturity with
a result the grade put in the relevant cells to be 1.0.
Figure 3 Basic group of criteria comparison table (see online version for colours)
In a similar manner the comparison records and the criteria for each distinct group were
formed. In the following schema the record for the group Project Utility appears.
Figure 4 Third level criteria comparison table (as of project utility) (see online versionfor colours)
In all the tables the inconsistency index C1 appears with the indication Incon. So, we
observe that in the Figure 3 with the groups of criteria C1 equals with 0.01, while in the
relevant table with the criteria of the group Project Utility the index is zero (0.00,
Figure 4). This means that the estimations of the members of the staff that contributed in
the exploration of the assessment criteria is are in general very reliable, as C1 is much
lower than the limit of consistency set by the AHP method as 0.10.
After the completion of the procedure the table in Figure 5 is produced with the final
weights of the groups of categories as well as the partial criteria composing those results.
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
13/18
32 C.C. Triantafyllidis and J. Papathanasiou
Figure 5 Final results of criteria weights (see online version for colours)
After examining the results, we observe that the greatest importance in the final grading
of the assessment of the projects to be incorporated in the programme is the
Project Maturity with a weight contributor of 0.312. In this group greater influence and
thus importance was deemed to have the criterion of the maturity of the study of the
project with a weight contributor 0.800.
Figure 6 Ideal mode of AHP(see online version for colours)
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
14/18
Multicriteria decision analysis in programme management 33
The whole picture and the influence of the totality of the partial criteria in the final
decision appears in the following table, where the inconsistency index C1 = 0.01 of the
application in the ideal mode of the AHP method (Figure 6), where the order of the
weight of the criteria is maintained as well as in the distributive mode (Figure 7), where
the reversion of the order of weights is permitted.
Figure 7 Distributive mode of AHP (see online version for colours)
The Expert Choice software enables the application of a sensitivity analysis in the
results. There is an ease for the depiction of many types, such as Performance,Dynamic, Gradient, Head to Head, 2D etc. If we choose the Dynamic
presentation, the following table is the result (Figure 8).
Figure 8 Sensitivity analysis: dynamic presentation (see online version for colours)
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
15/18
34 C.C. Triantafyllidis and J. Papathanasiou
If we alter the prices in the group of priorities, the weights of the partial criteria change
too, and we may observe that if, for example, balance the group weights so that theyall have the price of 0.25, then the partial weights keep the greatest importance the
Project Maturity and Contribution of the proposed project into the programme
objectives, whereas the Rationality of Project Budget that falls short in importance
compared to Observance of Public Project, Design and Procurements Legislation
(weight of 0.069 as opposed to 0.119), obtains now more impact to the final result
(weight of 0.135 as opposed to 0.106, Figure 9)
Figure 9 Balancing the basic group weights (see online version for colours)
7 Conclusions drawn from the application of the method-future prospects
The application of the AHP in the determination of the assessment criteria weights led to
the drawing of conclusions that could assist in the assessment procedure of the projects to
be incorporated in the programme of schools construction in the Central Macedonian
Region. So, the homogenisation and quantification of the criteria participating in the
assessment of the proposed for an incorporation project is thus observed. In this way the
synthesis of a different type of grading currently used in the comparative projectassessment is avoided.
The estimation of the final score of each proposal is made easier by the deduction of
set weights for each criterion. This conclusion can be proven right with the following
example: If for each group of criteria the ultimate grade is 100, then the participation
weights multiplied with the grade of each group and then added give the final score of the
project, as shown in the following tables. If we put in the table the four main groups of
criteria of the application, we observe what is shown in the Table 2:
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
16/18
Multicriteria decision analysis in programme management 35
Table 2 Final score estimation
Rate Criterium Weight Final score
Thoroughness and Clarity of Project 90 0.128 11.52
Observance of the Legislation 75 0.348 26.1
Project Utility 90 0.142 12.78
Project Maturity 70 0.383 26.81
77.21
We observe that despite the different grading of the groups, their combination with the
criteria weights as they were drawn from the application, gives the final result of 77.21. If
we estimate the average of the gradings, it is 81.25. This indicates that if the importance
of the criteria is introduced in the final assessment, the result can be influenced and in
every case a more realistic estimation of the assessment of the proposed projects is
given. In the same manner a comparison and evaluation of the influence of the
sub-criteria of each group in the estimation of the final result can be made.
The checking of the stability of the subjective selections of the participants in the
determination of the partial weights of the criteria-alternatives is made direct with the
use of the AHP Method and is made with the inspection of the consistency indexes C1
that result in each stage of the binary comparisons of the criteria.
With the application of the sensitivity analysis the prices that can influence and
change significantly the result can be found.
After the application made in the present assignment a serious importance in the
maturity of the proposed project resulted, which in turn means high quality studies and
the existence of the proper licence giving for the construction of the project, as theconstruction licence, the excavation licence, environmental licences etc.
We also observe that the purposefulness of the project as well as the observance of
the national and communal legislation play a serious part, while the contribution of the
thoroughness and clarity of the proposal places particular emphasis in the proper laying
out of the budget and the schedule of the project.
Final conclusions
In this assignment we attempted to explore the possibility of attributing the shadings in
the assessment process of the projects of school construction that are proposed to be
incorporated in the ROP CMR in the NSRF boundaries, so that the procedure is made the
most precise and fair possible for all participants.The use of the AHP method gave results that could be deemed as satisfactory and to
be the first cause of further research on the issue of the procedure of the assessment of
projects, which constitutes a basic prerequisite for the proper future management of the
programme that they will participate. The multicriteria decision making discipline offers
a quite large array of other methodologies as well that could contribute to this direction.
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
17/18
36 C.C. Triantafyllidis and J. Papathanasiou
References
Abu Zarhan, Z. (2011) Application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in the evaluation andselection of an information system reengineering projects,International Journal of ComputerScience and Network Security, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.172177.
Artto, K., Martinsuo, M., Gemnden, H-G. and Murtoaro, J. (2009) Foundations of programmanagement: a bibliometric view,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27,No. 1, pp.118.
Bana e Costa, C.A. and Vansnick, J.C. (2008) A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used toderive priorities in AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 187, No. 3,pp.14221428.
Belton, V. and Stewart, T.H. (2002)Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach,Kluwer Academic Publishers, Doordrecht, NL.
Bhushan, N. and Rai, K. (2004) Strategic Decision Making. Applying the Analytic HierarchyProcess (Decision Engineering), Springer Verlag, London, UK.
Brown, J.T. (2008) The Handbook of Program Management: How to Facilitate Project Successwith Optimal Program Management, McGraw-Hill Professional, Columbus, OH, USA.
Dolan, J. (2008) Shared decision-making transferring research into practice: the analytichierarchy process (AHP),Patient Education and Counseling, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp.418425.
Forman, E. and Gass, S. (2001) The analytic hierarchy process an exposition, OperationsResearch, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.469486.
Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Economy and Finance, General Secretariat for Investments andDevelopment (2007)National Strategic Reference Framework 20072013, Athens.
Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Economy and Finance (2010) Management and Auditing ofPart-Financing Projects Guide, 2nd ed. (in Greek), Athens.
Ipsilandis, P., Samaras, G. and Mplanas, N. (2008) A multicriteria satisfaction analysis approachin the assessment of operational programmes,International Journal of Project Management,Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.601611.
Lycett, M., Rassau, A. and Danson, J. (2004) Programme management: a critical review,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.289299.
Mavrotas, G., Caloghirou, Y. and Koune, J. (2005) A model on cash flow forecasting and earlywarning for multi-project programmes: application to the operational programme for theinformation society in Greece,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23, No. 2,pp.121133.
Milosevic, Dr., Martinelli, R. and Waddell, J.M. (2007) Program Management for ImprovedBusiness Results, Wiley and Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Murray-Webster, R. and Thiry, M. (2000) Managing programmes of projects, in Turner, J.R. andSimister, S.J. (Eds.): Gower Handbook of Project Management, 3rd ed., Gower, Aldershot,UK.
Office of Government Commerce (OGC) (2007)Managing Successful Programmes (MSPtm), TSO,Norwich, UK.
Pellegrinelli, S. (1997) Programme management: organising project-based change, InternationalJournal of Project Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.141149.
Pellegrinelli, S. (2011) Whats in a name: project or programme?, International Journal ofProject Management, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.232240.
Prieto, R. (2008) Strategic Program Management, Construction Management Association ofAmerica (CMAA), McLean, VA, USA.
Project Management Institute (PMI) (2008) The Standard for Program Management, 2nd ed.,Project Management Institute, Newton Square, PA, USA.
Rayner, P. (on behalf of the APM Programme Management SIG) (2007) APM Introduction toProgramme Management: 1, Association for Project Management, Buckinghamshire, UK.
8/11/2019 Arthro mcda
18/18
Multicriteria decision analysis in programme management 37
Reiss, G., Anthony, M., Chapman, J., Leigh, G., Rayner, P. and Pyne, A. (2006) The Gower
Handbook of Programme Management, Gower Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, UK.
Saaty, T.L. (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, Interfaces, Vol. 24,No. 6, pp.1943.
Sanghera, P. (2008)Fundamentals of Effective Program Management: A Process Approach Basedon the Global Standard, J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA.
Shehu, Z. and Akintove, A. (2009) Construction programme management theory and practice:contextual and pragmatic approach, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27,No. 7, pp.703716.
Thiry, M. (2002) Combining value and project management into an effective programmemanagement model, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, No. 3,pp.221227.
Thiry, M. (2004). For DAD: a programme management life-cycle process, InternationalJournal of Project Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, 245252.
Thomsen, C.H. (2008)Program Management, Construction Management Association of America(CMAA), McLean, VA, USA.
Triantafyllidis, C.H., Papathanassiou, J. and Tarnanidis, Y. (2007) Web evaluation of constructionindustry, in the area of Thessaloniki, in Matsatsinis, N. and Zopounidis, K. (Eds.): MultipleCriteria Decision Support Systems (in Greek), Kleidarithmos Publishing, Athens, GR.
Vaidya, O.S. and Kumar, S. (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications,European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 169, No. 1, pp.129.
Recommended