IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v12y2024i2p219-d1315784.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

SHARDA–ARAS: A Methodology for Prioritising Project Managers in Sustainable Development

Author

Listed:
  • Zenonas Turskis

    (The Institute of Sustainable Construction, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 03224 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Violeta Keršulienė

    (Department of Law, Business Management Faculty, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

In sustainable economic development, top-level human capital, especially project management, is paramount. This article integrates the Systematic Hierarchical Attribute Ratio Delphic Rating (SHARDA) method and the Additive Ratio Rating (ARAS) method as a robust framework for identifying and training project managers. The research draws on a diverse panel of experts against the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) backdrop, emphasising stakeholder engagement and transparency in the decision-making processes. This study investigates the complexity of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods and focuses on SWARA and ARAS methods. These methodologies comprehensively improve the decision-making process, considering a range of subjective criteria. The extended and modified hierarchical SWARA method helps us understand each measure’s importance, while the ARAS method simplifies ranking and selection based on performance ratios. The research methodology seamlessly integrates these methods to form the SHARDA–ARAS methodology that addresses the challenging task of selecting project managers for sustainable development. This methodology guarantees a systematic and inclusive decision-making process, incorporating stakeholder perspectives seamlessly aligned with global sustainability goals. The studio’s innovation is wrapped in the synthesis of SWARA and ARAS into the SHARDA–ARAS methodology, presenting a nuanced and effective tool for project manager selection. Promoting an interconnected and holistic approach that contributes to sustainable development emphasises the methodology’s ability to balance economic, environmental, and social aspects. Thus, the article provides an invaluable method for organisations seeking global sustainable economic development.

Suggested Citation

  • Zenonas Turskis & Violeta Keršulienė, 2024. "SHARDA–ARAS: A Methodology for Prioritising Project Managers in Sustainable Development," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:2:p:219-:d:1315784
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/2/219/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/2/219/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Rebecca Sandover & Alice Moseley & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2021. "Contrasting Views of Citizens’ Assemblies: Stakeholder Perceptions of Public Deliberation on Climate Change," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 76-86.
    3. Darko B. Vuković & Senanu Dekpo-Adza & Vladislav Khmelnitskiy & Mustafa Özer, 2023. "Spillovers across the Asian OPEC+ Financial Market," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-23, September.
    4. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    5. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Peter C. Fishburn, 1967. "Letter to the Editor—Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Sets: Application to Priorities and Assignments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 537-542, June.
    7. Robert T. Eckenrode, 1965. "Weighting Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 180-192, November.
    8. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yang, Chih-Hao & Lee, Kuen-Chang, 2020. "Developing a strategy map for forensic accounting with fraud risk management: An integrated balanced scorecard-based decision model," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    3. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Taking a closer look at multiple criteria analysis and economic evaluation," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139785, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Qian-Yun Tan & Cui-Ping Wei & Qi Liu & Xiang-Qian Feng, 2016. "The Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS Method Based on Novel Information Measures," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 33(05), pages 1-22, October.
    5. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    6. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    7. Mahsa Ghandi & Abbas Roozbahani, 2020. "Risk Management of Drinking Water Supply in Critical Conditions Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE V Technique," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 595-615, January.
    8. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    9. Beynon, Malcolm J. & Wells, Peter, 2008. "The lean improvement of the chemical emissions of motor vehicles based on preference ranking: A PROMETHEE uncertainty analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 384-394, June.
    10. A. Nureize & J. Watada & S. Wang, 2014. "Fuzzy random regression based multi-attribute evaluation and its application to oil palm fruit grading," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 219(1), pages 299-315, August.
    11. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    12. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    13. Scholz, Michael & Pfeiffer, Jella & Rothlauf, Franz, 2017. "Using PageRank for non-personalized default rankings in dynamic markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 388-401.
    14. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
    15. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Richard M. Anderson & Robert Clemen, 2013. "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 121-134, June.
    17. Richard M. Anderson & Benjamin F. Hobbs, 2002. "Using a Bayesian Approach to Quantify Scale Compatibility Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(12), pages 1555-1568, December.
    18. Tom Pape, 2020. "Prioritising data items for business analytics: Framework and application to human resources," Papers 2012.13813, arXiv.org.
    19. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    20. Goumas, M. & Lygerou, V., 2000. "An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 606-613, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:2:p:219-:d:1315784. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.