IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i15p8216-d599591.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Decision Making in Sustainable Project Selection Between Literature and Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Rakan Alyamani

    (Department of Engineering Management, Prince Sultan University, P.O. Box 66833, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia
    Department of Engineering Management & Systems Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 65409, USA)

  • Suzanna Long

    (Department of Engineering Management & Systems Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 65409, USA)

  • Mohammad Nurunnabi

    (Department of Accounting, Prince Sultan University, P.O. Box 66833, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

A robust project selection process is critical for the selection of sustainable projects that meet the needs of an organization or community. There are multiple factors or criteria that can be considered in the selection of the appropriate sustainable project, but it can be challenging to find sufficient depth of expert opinion to perform a strong evaluation of these criteria. Several researchers have turned to the sustainable project literature as a source of expert opinion to evaluate the criteria used in sustainable project selection and rank them based on importance using different multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodologies. However, using the literature as a source of expert opinion poses a different set of challenges and may not accurately represent the actual opinions of sustainable project subject matter experts (SMEs) and practitioners. In this study, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) methodology is used to determine the importance of project cost, project maturity, skill and experience, uncertainty, and technology information transfer as selection criteria using collected opinions from academic sustainable project experts and practitioners. The results are then compared with previous research that used the literature to rank these five criteria based on importance when selecting between multiple sustainable project alternatives. The results show that project cost is still considered the major driver of decision making in sustainable project selection by both the literature and practice. However, unlike the literature-as-experts approach, SMEs prioritize skill and experience and technology information transfer over project maturity and uncertainty. Project managers and decision makers can use these findings to best prioritize the types of challenges that may occur depending on inputs for the FAHP analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Rakan Alyamani & Suzanna Long & Mohammad Nurunnabi, 2021. "Evaluating Decision Making in Sustainable Project Selection Between Literature and Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:15:p:8216-:d:599591
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8216/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8216/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Magdalena Ligus, 2017. "Evaluation of Economic, Social and Environmental Effects of Low-Emission Energy Technologies Development in Poland: A Multi-Criteria Analysis with Application of a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FA," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    2. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    3. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur, 2017. "Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 549-560.
    4. Yasir Ahmed Solangi & Qingmei Tan & Muhammad Waris Ali Khan & Nayyar Hussain Mirjat & Ifzal Ahmed, 2018. "The Selection of Wind Power Project Location in the Southeastern Corridor of Pakistan: A Factor Analysis, AHP, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS Application," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-26, July.
    5. Seyed Morteza Hatefi & Jolanta Tamošaitienė, 2018. "Construction Projects Assessment Based on the Sustainable Development Criteria by an Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Improved GRA Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, March.
    6. Azdren Doli & Dastan Bamwesigye & Petra Hlaváčková & Jitka Fialová & Petr Kupec & Obed Asamoah, 2021. "Forest Park Visitors Opinions and Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Development of the Germia Forest and Recreational Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, March.
    7. Rakan Alyamani & Suzanna Long, 2020. "The Application of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in Sustainable Project Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    8. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Orlando Lima & Gabriela Fernandes & Anabela Tereso, 2023. "Benefits of Adopting Innovation and Sustainability Practices in Project Management within the SME Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Kucher, Lesia & Hełdak, Maria & Orochovska, Lyudmila, 2023. "Assessment of the readiness of agrarian enterprises to implement innovative projects," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 9(1), March.

    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. López-González, A. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Domenech, B., 2019. "Sustainable rural electrification planning in developing countries: A proposal for electrification of isolated communities of Venezuela," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 327-338.
    2. Magdalena Ligus & Piotr Peternek, 2021. "The Sustainable Energy Development Index—An Application for European Union Member States," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-32, February.
    3. Rakan Alyamani & Suzanna Long, 2020. "The Application of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in Sustainable Project Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Teodora M. Șoimoșan & Ligia M. Moga & Livia Anastasiu & Daniela L. Manea & Aurica Căzilă & Čedomir Zeljković, 2021. "Overall Efficiency of On-Site Production and Storage of Solar Thermal Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur & Mukul, Esin, 2018. "A novel renewable energy selection model for United Nations' sustainable development goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PA), pages 290-302.
    6. Sandra L. Cobos-Mora & José Guamán-Aucapiña & Jonathan Zúñiga-Ruiz, 2023. "Suitable site selection for transfer stations in a solid waste management system using analytical hierarchy process as a multi-criteria decision analysis: a case study in Azuay-Ecuador," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1944-1977, February.
    7. Xiongyong Zhou & Zhiduan Xu, 2018. "An Integrated Sustainable Supplier Selection Approach Based on Hybrid Information Aggregation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-49, July.
    8. Mechthild Donner & Anne Verniquet & Jan Broeze & Katrin Kayser & Hugo de Vries, 2021. "Critical success and risk factors for circular business models valorising agricultural waste and by-products," Post-Print hal-03004851, HAL.
    9. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    10. CHEN, Helen S.Y., 2020. "Designing Sustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains," OSF Preprints m82ar, Center for Open Science.
    11. Jim Butcher, 2006. "The United Nations International Year of Ecotourism: a critical analysis of development implications," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 6(2), pages 146-156, April.
    12. Denise Ravet, 2011. "Lean production: the link between supply chain and sustainable development in an international environment," Post-Print hal-00691666, HAL.
    13. Mara Del Baldo, 2012. "Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: the experience of some “spirited businesses”," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(1), pages 1-36, February.
    14. Megan Devonald & Nicola Jones & Sally Youssef, 2022. "‘We Have No Hope for Anything’: Exploring Interconnected Economic, Social and Environmental Risks to Adolescents in Lebanon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Rigby, Dan & Woodhouse, Phil & Young, Trevor & Burton, Michael, 2001. "Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 463-478, December.
    16. Michael Howes & Liana Wortley & Ruth Potts & Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes & Silvia Serrao-Neumann & Julie Davidson & Timothy Smith & Patrick Nunn, 2017. "Environmental Sustainability: A Case of Policy Implementation Failure?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, January.
    17. Shiferaw, Bekele & Holden, Stein, 1999. "Soil Erosion and Smallholders' Conservation Decisions in the Highlands of Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 739-752, April.
    18. Ibrahim Ari & Muammer Koc, 2018. "Sustainable Financing for Sustainable Development: Understanding the Interrelations between Public Investment and Sovereign Debt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-25, October.
    19. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    20. Pengji Wang & Adrian T. H. Kuah & Qinye Lu & Caroline Wong & K. Thirumaran & Emmanuel Adegbite & Wesley Kendall, 2021. "The impact of value perceptions on purchase intention of sustainable luxury brands in China and the UK," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(3), pages 325-346, May.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:15:p:8216-:d:599591. 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.