IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v206y2013i1p449-48310.1007-s10479-013-1387-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A fuzzy multidimensional multiple-choice knapsack model for project portfolio selection using an evolutionary algorithm

Author

Abstract

Project portfolio selection problems are inherently complex problems with multiple and often conflicting objectives. Numerous analytical techniques ranging from simple weighted scoring to complex mathematical programming approaches have been proposed to solve these problems with precise data. However, the project data in real-world problems are often imprecise or ambiguous. We propose a fuzzy Multidimensional Multiple-choice Knapsack Problem (MMKP) formulation for project portfolio selection. The proposed model is composed of an Efficient Epsilon-Constraint (EEC) method and a customized multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. A Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model is used to prune the generated solutions into a limited and manageable set of implementable alternatives. Statistical analysis is performed to investigate the effectiveness of the proposed approach in comparison with the competing methods in the literature. A case study is presented to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model and exhibit the efficacy of the procedures and algorithms. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Madjid Tavana & Kaveh Khalili-Damghani & Amir-Reza Abtahi, 2013. "A fuzzy multidimensional multiple-choice knapsack model for project portfolio selection using an evolutionary algorithm," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 206(1), pages 449-483, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:206:y:2013:i:1:p:449-483:10.1007/s10479-013-1387-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-013-1387-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-013-1387-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-013-1387-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Emrouznejad, Ali & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "A taxonomy and review of the fuzzy data envelopment analysis literature: Two decades in the making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(3), pages 457-472, November.
    2. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    3. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Seiford, L. & Stutz, J., 1982. "A multiplicative model for efficiency analysis," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 223-224.
    4. Mavrotas, George & Diakoulaki, Danae & Kourentzis, Athanasios, 2008. "Selection among ranked projects under segmentation, policy and logical constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 177-192, May.
    5. Cook, Wade D. & Green, Rodney H., 2000. "Project prioritization: a resource-constrained data envelopment analysis approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 85-99, June.
    6. Eilat, Harel & Golany, Boaz & Shtub, Avraham, 2008. "R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 895-912, October.
    7. Khalili-Damghani, Kaveh & Abtahi, Amir-Reza & Tavana, Madjid, 2013. "A new multi-objective particle swarm optimization method for solving reliability redundancy allocation problems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 58-75.
    8. Eilat, Harel & Golany, Boaz & Shtub, Avraham, 2006. "Constructing and evaluating balanced portfolios of R&D projects with interactions: A DEA based methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(3), pages 1018-1039, August.
    9. Kao, Chiang & Liu, Shiang-Tai, 2003. "A mathematical programming approach to fuzzy efficiency ranking," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 145-154, November.
    10. Shah, Ruchit & Reed, Patrick, 2011. "Comparative analysis of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for random and correlated instances of multiobjective d-dimensional knapsack problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 211(3), pages 466-479, June.
    11. Lin, Feng-Tse, 2008. "Solving the knapsack problem with imprecise weight coefficients using genetic algorithms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 133-145, February.
    12. Lin, Feng-Tse & Yao, Jing-Shing, 2001. "Using fuzzy numbers in knapsack problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 158-176, November.
    13. Florios, Kostas & Mavrotas, George & Diakoulaki, Danae, 2010. "Solving multiobjective, multiconstraint knapsack problems using mathematical programming and evolutionary algorithms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(1), pages 14-21, May.
    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. Panos Xidonas & Haris Doukas & George Mavrotas & Olena Pechak, 2016. "Environmental corporate responsibility for investments evaluation: an alternative multi-objective programming model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 247(2), pages 395-413, December.
    2. Navid Zarbakhshnia & Devika Kannan & Reza Kiani Mavi & Hamed Soleimani, 2020. "A novel sustainable multi-objective optimization model for forward and reverse logistics system under demand uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 295(2), pages 843-880, December.
    3. Barbati, Maria & Greco, Salvatore & Kadziński, Miłosz & Słowiński, Roman, 2018. "Optimization of multiple satisfaction levels in portfolio decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 192-204.
    4. A. Mohammed, 2020. "Towards a sustainable assessment of suppliers: an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS-possibilistic multi-objective approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 639-668, October.

    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. García-Valderrama, Teresa & Mulero-Mendigorri, Eva & Revuelta-Bordoy, Daniel, 2009. "Relating the perspectives of the balanced scorecard for R&D by means of DEA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(3), pages 1177-1189, August.
    2. Adel Hatami-Marbini & Madjid Tavana & Kobra Gholami & Zahra Ghelej Beigi, 2015. "A Bounded Data Envelopment Analysis Model in a Fuzzy Environment with an Application to Safety in the Semiconductor Industry," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 164(2), pages 679-701, February.
    3. Zervopoulos, Panagiotis D. & Brisimi, Theodora S. & Emrouznejad, Ali & Cheng, Gang, 2016. "Performance measurement with multiple interrelated variables and threshold target levels: Evidence from retail firms in the US," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 262-272.
    4. Sara Fanati Rashidi, 2020. "Studying productivity using a synergy between the balanced scorecard and analytic network process," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 57(4), pages 1404-1421, December.
    5. Viera Roháčová, 2015. "A DEA based approach for optimization of urban public transport system," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(1), pages 215-233, March.
    6. Amar Oukil & Srikrishna Madhumohan Govindaluri, 2020. "A hybrid multi‐attribute decision‐making procedure for ranking project proposals: A historical data perspective," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(3), pages 461-472, April.
    7. Ai-bing Ji & Yanhua Qiao & Chang Liu, 2019. "Fuzzy DEA-based classifier and its applications in healthcare management," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 560-568, September.
    8. Mohammad Zarei Mahmoudabadi & Ali Emrouznejad, 2024. "Balanced performance assessment under uncertainty: an integrated CSW-DEA and balanced scorecard (BSC)," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 341(1), pages 539-554, October.
    9. HATAMI-MARBINI, Adel & AGRELL, Per & AGHAYI, Nazila, 2013. "Imprecise data envelopment analysis for the two-stage process," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2013004, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    10. Mavrotas, George & Makryvelios, Evangelos, 2021. "Combining multiple criteria analysis, mathematical programming and Monte Carlo simulation to tackle uncertainty in Research and Development project portfolio selection: A case study from Greece," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 794-806.
    11. Madjid Tavana & Kaveh Khalili-Damghani & Rahman Rahmatian, 2015. "A hybrid fuzzy MCDM method for measuring the performance of publicly held pharmaceutical companies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 589-621, March.
    12. Mavrotas, George & Florios, Kostas, 2013. "An improved version of the augmented epsilon-constraint method (AUGMECON2) for finding the exact Pareto set in Multi-Objective Integer Programming problems," MPRA Paper 105034, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Leonardo Tomazeli Duarte & Alex Pincelli Mussio & Cristiano Torezzan, 2020. "Dealing with missing information in data envelopment analysis by means of low-rank matrix completion," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 286(1), pages 719-732, March.
    14. Rafael Benítez & Vicente Coll-Serrano & Vicente J. Bolós, 2021. "deaR-Shiny: An Interactive Web App for Data Envelopment Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-19, June.
    15. Hedieh Sajedi & Seyedeh Fatemeh Razavi, 2017. "DGSA: discrete gravitational search algorithm for solving knapsack problem," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 563-591, July.
    16. Amado, Carla A.F. & Santos, Sérgio P. & Marques, Pedro M., 2012. "Integrating the Data Envelopment Analysis and the Balanced Scorecard approaches for enhanced performance assessment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 390-403.
    17. Jahangoshai Rezaee, Mustafa & Jozmaleki, Mehrdad & Valipour, Mahsa, 2018. "Integrating dynamic fuzzy C-means, data envelopment analysis and artificial neural network to online prediction performance of companies in stock exchange," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 489(C), pages 78-93.
    18. Adler, Nicole & Friedman, Lea & Sinuany-Stern, Zilla, 2002. "Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 249-265, July.
    19. Matthias Klumpp & Dominic Loske, 2021. "Sustainability and Resilience Revisited: Impact of Information Technology Disruptions on Empirical Retail Logistics Efficiency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, May.
    20. Tarnaud, Albane Christine & Leleu, Hervé, 2018. "Portfolio analysis with DEA: Prior to choosing a model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 57-76.

    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:spr:annopr:v:206:y:2013:i:1:p:449-483:10.1007/s10479-013-1387-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.