International journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN:2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 5, Issue 8 (August 2018), Pages: 91-94

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Ranking project success criteria in power engineering companies using fuzzy decision-making method

 Author(s): Phong Thanh Nguyen 1, Thu Anh Nguyen 2, Quyen Le Hoang Thuy To Nguyen 1, *, Vy Dang Bich Huynh 1, Khoa Dang Vo 1

 Affiliation(s):

 1Department of Project Management, Ho Chi Minh City Open University (HCMCOU), Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
 2Department of Construction Engineering and Management, Ho Chi Minh University of Technology (HCMUT), Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2018.08.011

 Full Text - PDF          XML

 Abstract:

In the global market economy, most power consulting enterprises in Vietnam have many engineering investment projects. The successful implementation of investment projects is a vital part of their business. For projects to succeed, CEO and leaders in those firms must make the right criteria for evaluating projects. In real practice, it is not an easy task because there are many factors that influence the success of a project such as time, cost, quality, and the satisfaction of stakeholders, etc. Assessing the importance of these project success criteria is a complex multi-criterion decision problem. On the other hand, traditional assessment methods are often based on t customarily based on subjective opinions of the decision maker, resulting in the wrong decision. Therefore, this paper presents a new fuzzy decision-making method for weighting project success criteria in power consulting companies in Vietnam. This new method is expected to provide an objective measure in project success appraisal process. 

 © 2018 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Project management, Fuzzy logic, Analytical hierarchy process, Power company, Success criteria

 Article History: Received 27 March 2018, Received in revised form 3 June 2018, Accepted 9 June 2018

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2018.08.011

 Citation:

 Nguyen PT, Nguyen TA, and Nguyen QLHTT et al. (2018). Ranking project success criteria in power engineering companies using fuzzy decision-making method. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(8): 91-94

 Permanent Link:

 http://www.science-gate.com/IJAAS/2018/V5I8/Nguyen.html

----------------------------------------------

 References (38) 

  1. Abdullah MN, Asmoni M, Mohammed A, Mei J, and Ting L (2015). Critical success factors of project quality management system for Malaysian construction industry. Jurnal Teknologi, 74(2): 123-131.   [Google Scholar]   
  2. Ahadzie DK, Proverbs DG, and Olomolaiye PO (2008). Critical success criteria for mass house building projects in developing countries. International Journal of Project Management, 26(6): 675-687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.006   [Google Scholar] 
  3. Altahtooh UA and Emsley MW (2017). An introduction to project end theory in project management. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, 8(3): 69-81. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJITPM.2017070105   [Google Scholar] 
  4. Al-Tmeemy SMHM, Abdul-Rahman H, and Harun Z (2011). Future criteria for success of building projects in Malaysia. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3): 337-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.03.003   [Google Scholar] 
  5. Azhar YM, Al-Munawar N, and Tuan YC (2015). Critical success factor on e-Government it projects in Brunei Darussalam. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 13(9): 6969-6990.   [Google Scholar]     
  6. Buckley JJ (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3): 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9   [Google Scholar] 
  7. Chan AP, Scott D, and Chan AP (2004). Factors affecting the success of a construction project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(1), 153-155. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:1(153)   [Google Scholar] 
  8. Chang SC, Lin CF, and Wu WM (2016). The features and marketability of certificates for occupational safety and health management in Taiwan. Safety Science, 85: 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.024   [Google Scholar] 
  9. Chou YC, Sun CC, and Yen HY (2012). Evaluating the criteria for human resource for science and technology (HRST) based on an integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Applied Soft Computing, 12(1): 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2011.08.058   [Google Scholar] 
  10. Crane TG, Felder JP, Thompson PJ, Thompson MG, and Sanders SR (1999). Partnering measures. Journal of Management in Engineering, 15(2): 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1999)15:2(37)   [Google Scholar] 
  11. De Wit A (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 6(3): 164-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(88)90043-9   [Google Scholar] 
  12. Hamid-Mosaku IA, Mahmud MR, and Mohd MS (2016). An evaluation of marine geospatial data infrastructure (MGDI) by delphi-Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach. Jurnal Teknologi, 78(6-12): 57-68.   [Google Scholar]     
  13. Heo E, Kim J, and Boo KJ (2010). Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(8): 2214-2220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.01.020   [Google Scholar] 
  14. Iram N, Khan B, Ahmad MS, and Sahibzada UF (2017). Critical factors influencing the project success: An analysis of projects in manufacturing and construction industries in Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Business Studies Review, 1(1): 41-52.   [Google Scholar]     
  15. Joslin R and Müller R (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6): 1377-1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.005   [Google Scholar] 
  16. Kabir G and Sumi RS (2014). Power substation location selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and PROMETHEE: A case study from Bangladesh. Energy, 72: 717-730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.098   [Google Scholar] 
  17. Khalila N, Kamaruzzamanb SN, and Rizal M (2015). A survey on the performance-risk rating index for building performance assessment in higher education buildings. Jurnal Teknologi, 75(9): 57–63. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v75.5230   [Google Scholar] 
  18. Lim CS and Mohamed MZ (1999). Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4): 243-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00040-4   [Google Scholar] 
  19. Liu AMM and Walker A (1998). Evaluation of project outcomes. Construction Management and Economics, 16(1): 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461998372493   [Google Scholar] 
  20. Nazari A, Vandadian S, and Abdirad H (2016). Fuzzy AHP Model for prequalification of engineering consultants in the Iranian public procurement system. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33(2): 04016042. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000489   [Google Scholar] 
  21. Nguyen PT and Nguyen QTTHL (2017). Application fuzzy multi-attribute decision analysis method to prioritize project success criteria. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1903(1): 070011.   [Google Scholar]     
  22. Nguyen PT, Nguyen PV, and Nguyen QTTHL (2017a). Application of fuzzy analytic network process and TOPSIS method for material supplier selection. Key Engineering Materials, 728: 411-415. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.728.411   [Google Scholar] 
  23. Nguyen PT, Nguyen PV, Nguyen QTTHL, and Huynh VBD (2016a). Project success evaluation using TOPSIS algorithm. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 11(8): 1876-1879.   [Google Scholar]     
  24. Nguyen PT, Nguyen TA, Ha NTH, and Nguyen TN (2017b). Facilities management in high rise buildings using building information modeling. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(2): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2017.02.001   [Google Scholar]     
  25. Nguyen PV, Nguyen PT, Nguyen QTTHL, and Huynh VBD (2016b). Calculating weights of social capital index using analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(3): 1189-1193.   [Google Scholar]     
  26. Nguyen TA, Nguyen PT, and Peansupap V (2015). Explaining model for supervisor's behavior on safety action based on their perceptions. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(20): 9562-9572.   [Google Scholar]    
  27. Oke AE and Aigbavboa CO (2017). Measures of project success. In: Oke AE and Aigbavboa CO (Eds.), Sustainable value management for construction projects: 75-86. Springer, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54151-8_5   [Google Scholar] 
  28. Paksoy T, Pehlivan NY, and Kahraman C (2012). Organizational strategy development in distribution channel management using fuzzy AHP and hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3): 2822-2841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.142   [Google Scholar] 
  29. Plebankiewicz E and Kubek D (2015). Multicriteria selection of the building material supplier using AHP and fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(1): 04015057. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001033   [Google Scholar] 
  30. Quyen NLHTT, Nguyen PT, and Huynh VBD (2017a). A hybrid multi criteria decision analysis for engineering project manager evaluation. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(4): 49-52. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2017.04.008   [Google Scholar] 
  31. Quyen NLHTT, Nguyen PT, and Huynh VDB (2017b). Prioritization of social capital indicators using extent analysis method. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(10): 54-57. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2017.010.009   [Google Scholar] 
  32. Routroy S and Shankar A (2015). Performance analysis of agile supply chain. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 29(3-4): 180-210. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMTM.2015.069255   [Google Scholar] 
  33. Saaty TL (2005). Making and validating complex decisions with the AHP/ANP. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 14(1): 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0179-6   [Google Scholar] 
  34. Shaari N, Abdullah MN, Asmoni M, Lokman M, Hamid H, and Mohammed A (2015). Practices for project quality management systems (PMMS) in construction project. Jurnal Teknologi, 77(26): 69-76. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6862   [Google Scholar] 
  35. Songer AD, Molenaar KR, and Robinson GD (1996). Selection factors and success criteria for design-build in the US and UK. Journal of Construction Procurement, 2(2): 69-82.   [Google Scholar]     
  36. Todorović ML, Petrović DČ, Mihić MM, Obradović VL, and Bushuyev SD (2015). Project success analysis framework: A knowledge-based approach in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4): 772-783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.10.009   [Google Scholar] 
  37. Umara A, Embia MR, Yatimb YM, Alkalic IA, and Bahru UJ (2015). Experts influence on fire safety criteria ranking for factory buildings in Nigeria. Jurnal Teknologi, 77(14): 95-98. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6451   [Google Scholar] 
  38. Zaini NSM, Basri NEA, Zain SM, and Saad NFM (2015). Selecting the best composting technology using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Jurnal Teknologi, 77(1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.3180   [Google Scholar]