FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1582951918> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1582951918 startingPage "79" @default.
• W1582951918 abstract "ABSTRACT A very large class of problems in management and administration are known as multi-attribute decision problems. Such problems involve decisions that must take into account large numbers of variables and objectives that cannot always be directly quantified. These problems are rendered even more unwieldy to handle by the fact that the variables and objectives are often in conflict. One very popular approach to handling this class of problem is called Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP affords a technique for structuring this class of problems so that it can be given a quasi-quantitative structure. This permits handling any number of variables and objectives, quantitative and non-quantitative, compatible and conflicting. One practical problem of the multi-attribute type is the selection of project management software. In this paper there is developed an approach to the use of AHP in the selection of project management software. INTRODUCTION Decision Analysis involving multiple variables and obj ectives that can be quantified is rather commonplace. The methods for solving such problems are rather well established. One simply quantifies with some measure the variables and objectives involved in the problem, then chooses the appropriate solution methodology, obtains the necessary data and calculates an answer. However, with problems involving variables and objectives that cannot be measured, or at best can be only partly measured, the solution approach is not always so clear. This is particularly true when the variables and objectives involve personal preferences. The approach frequently taken with such problems is to simply prioritize the decision considerations and try to choose a solution that maximizes the desired decision quantities at minimum cost. Although this may not be too difficult with a limited number of decision quantities, it can become very difficult when the number of such quantities is large. In addition, the problem becomes vastly more complex when some of the decision quantities are in mutual conflict. Thus, making rational decisions under such circumstances may become extraordinarily difficult. A number of techniques are available for arriving at decisions having multi-attributes. Unfortunately, most of them require that the attributes be measurable. When the attributes are of a more qualitative nature, the multi-attribute problem becomes much more difficult to handle. Herein lies the value and power of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). With AHP it is possible to give a qualitative type problem a quasi-quantitative structure, and to arrive at decisions by expressing preferences for one attribute over another, and testing whether the preferences are rational consistent. In this paper, we use AHP to analyze the selection process for project management software (PMS). We approach this problem by treating the PMS features offered by various companies as attributes. We then have a group of PM professionals evaluate the various features as to their importance and desirability. From these evaluations, paired comparison matrices are developed. Next, a set of matrices is developed for each software provider that evaluate just how well each provider's software satisfies each attribute. A consistency ratio is then computed to determine how rigorously rational consistency has been maintained in the analysis. Ordinarily, an AHP analysis would end here, but we extend our analysis by using the Student' s t test for small sample sizes to determine a confidence interval within which the responses should lie. This analysis fills a void in the literature by demonstrating a perfectly generalized process for solving a practical multi-attribute decision problem, and for arriving at a high level of confidence that a rational decision will have been made. LITERATURE REVIEW AHP was originally conceived by Thomas L. Saaty as a structured method for solving problems involving decision variables or decision attributes, at least some of which, are qualitative, and cannot be directly measured (Saaty, 1980). …" @default.
• W1582951918 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1582951918 creator A5012222012 @default.
• W1582951918 creator A5069965495 @default.
• W1582951918 creator A5079166107 @default.
• W1582951918 date "2008-07-01" @default.
• W1582951918 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1582951918 title "Project Management Software Selection Using Analytical Hierarchy Process" @default.
• W1582951918 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W1582951918 type Work @default.
• W1582951918 sameAs 1582951918 @default.
• W1582951918 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W1582951918 countsByYear W15829519182016 @default.
• W1582951918 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1582951918 hasAuthorship W1582951918A5012222012 @default.
• W1582951918 hasAuthorship W1582951918A5069965495 @default.
• W1582951918 hasAuthorship W1582951918A5079166107 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C2775945657 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C2777904410 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C31170391 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C34447519 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C42475967 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C81917197 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConcept C87345402 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C10138342 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C154945302 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C162324750 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C199360897 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C2775945657 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C2777212361 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C2777904410 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C31170391 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C33923547 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C34447519 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C41008148 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C42475967 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C81917197 @default.
• W1582951918 hasConceptScore W1582951918C87345402 @default.
• W1582951918 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1582951918 hasLocation W15829519181 @default.
• W1582951918 hasOpenAccess W1582951918 @default.
• W1582951918 hasPrimaryLocation W15829519181 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W1526492232 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W1536149759 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W1581467043 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W1972581211 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2001274352 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2048018284 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2062018486 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2082244815 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2103758536 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2137574811 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2171586132 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2186541311 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2319753075 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2548403018 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2577124894 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2906383630 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W2964803432 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W3128361929 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W599037560 @default.
• W1582951918 hasRelatedWork W3123713903 @default.
• W1582951918 hasVolume "11" @default.
• W1582951918 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1582951918 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1582951918 magId "1582951918" @default.
• W1582951918 workType "article" @default.