PORTFOLIO SELECTION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROJECTS USING PROMETHEE V WITH C-OPTIMAL CONCEPT

This paper presents a multicriteria decision model for selecting a portfolio of information system (IS) projects, which integrates strategic and organizational view within a multicriteria decision structure. The PROMETHEE V method, based on outranking relations is applied, considering the c-optimal concept in order to overcome some scaling problems found in the classical PROMETHEE V approach. Then, a procedure is proposed in order to make a final analysis of the c-optimal portfolios found as a result of using PROMETHEE V. Also, the organizational view is discussed, including some factors that may influence decision making on IS projects to be included in the portfolio, such as adding the company's strategic vision and technical aspects that demonstrate how IS contributes value to a company's business.

multiple criteria analysis; PROMETHEE V; c-optimal portfolio concept; project portfolio; information system planning; information technology priorities

Authorship

Jonatas A. de Almeida ^**Corresponding author

Adiel T. de Almeida

Ana Paula C.S. Costa

*Corresponding author

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Federal University of Pernambuco, Cx. Postal 7462, 50630-970 Recife, PE, Brazil. E-mails: jonatasaa@yahoo.com.br; almeidaatd@gmail.com; apcabral@hotmail.comFederal University of PernambucoBrazilRecife, PE, BrazilFederal University of Pernambuco, Cx. Postal 7462, 50630-970 Recife, PE, Brazil. E-mails: jonatasaa@yahoo.com.br; almeidaatd@gmail.com; apcabral@hotmail.com

Figures | Tables

Figures (1)
Tables (8)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Portfolios value per criterion.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Clusters of information System (CIS).

Thumbnail

Table 2
Relation of the macro-processes with strategic criteria || r_ij ||.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Evaluation of the macro-processes in the light of the criteria for processes p^c_j.

Thumbnail

Table 4
ISMs of the computing science incubator company.

Thumbnail

Table 5
Weight of the criteria adopted.

Thumbnail

Table 6
Evaluation ISMs by each criterion (× 100) and cost of projects implementation ($1.00).

Thumbnail

Table 7
Portfolios selected.

Thumbnail

Table 8
Portfolios performance per criterion.

Figure 1 Portfolios value per criterion.

Table 1 Clusters of information System (CIS).

CIS	Macro-processes involved
Planning	Strategic planning and management control
Personnel	Personnel management
Finances	Financial management
Services	Development of systems,
	Integration of systems,
	Maintenance and support of systems
Operation	Operation of systems
New technologies	Management of technological
New technologies	development and of information
Commercialization	Commercialization

Table 2 Relation of the macro-processes with strategic criteria || r_ij ||.

Macro-processes	New technologies	New business	Quality of service
Strategic planning and management control	0.1	0.05	0.10
Personnel management	0.1	0.05	0.10
Financial management	0.05	0.05	0.10
Development of systems	0.3	0.3	0.2
Integration and systems	0.2	0.1	0.1
Maintenance and support of systems	0.1	0.2	0.05
Operation of systems	0.05	0.1	0.05
Management of technological development and of information	0.05	0.1	0.1
Commercialization	0.05	0.05	0.2

Table 3 Evaluation of the macro-processes in the light of the criteria for processes p^c_j.

Macro-processes	Importance of the automation	User's commitment
Strategic planning and management control	0.1	0.05
Personnel management	0.1	0.1
Financial management	0.1	0.1
Development of systems	0.2	0.2
Integration and systems	00.1	0.1
Maintenance and support of systems	0.15	0.15
Operation of systems	0.15	0.15
Management of technological development and of information	0.05	0.1
Commercialization	0.05	0.05

Table 4 ISMs of the computing science incubator company.

CIS\IFA	TIS (1)	MIS (2)	DSS (3)	EIS (4)	APS (6)
Planning (1)	Transactional	Management	Decision	Executive	—
	Information	Information	Support	Information
	on Planning	on Planning	to Planning	on Planning
Personnel (2)	Transactional	Management	Decision	—	—
	Information	Information	Support
	on Personnel	on Staff	to Staff
Finance (3)	Transactional	Management	Decision	Executive	—
	Information	Information	Support	Information
	on Finance	on Finance	to Finance	on Finance
Services (4)	Transactional	Management	Decision	—	—
	Information	Information	Support
	on Services	on Services	to Services
Operation (5)	Transactional	Management	Decision	—	Automation
	Information	Information	Support		of Production
	on Operation	on Operation	to Operation		in Operation
New Technologies (6)	Transactional	—	Decision	Executive	—
	Information		Support	Information
	on NT		to NT	on NT
Commercialization (7)	Transactional	Management	Decision	Executive	—
	Information on	Informationen	Support to	Information on
	Commercialization	Commercialization	Commercialization	Commercialization

Table 5 Weight of the criteria adopted.

Group of criteria	Criterion	Final weight
Strategic	New technologies (CI)	0.08
	Opportunity for new business (C2)	0.24
	Quality of service (C3)	0.21
Technical	Technological opportunity (C4)	0.07
Technical	Relative cost of the technology (C5)	0.07
Process	The user's commitment (C6)	0.21
Process	Importance of automation (C7)	0.12

Table 6 Evaluation ISMs by each criterion (× 100) and cost of projects implementation ($1.00).

ISM	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	Cost
1	0.75	0.4	0.8	0.8	0.45	1.5	4	311,600
2	0.75	0.4	0.8	0.8	0.45	1	1	269,000
3	3	1.6	3.2	3.2	1.8	7.5	3	738,200
4	3	1.6	3.2	3.2	1.8	15	5	713,700
5	4	2	4	4	4	1.5	4	364,400
6	3.2	1.6	3.2	3.2	3.2	2	2	573,600
7	0.8	0.4	0.8	0.8	0.8	2.5	1	342,500
8	1.2	1.13	2.25	2.25	2.18	1.5	4	559,500
9	1.6	1.5	3	3	2.9	2	2	236,400
10	0.8	0.75	1.5	1.5	1.45	5	2	459,300
11	0.4	0.38	0.75	0.75	0.73	9	3	768,300
12	13.65	14.48	7.95	10.95	10.88	0.75	2	660,000
13	22.75	24.13	13.25	18.25	18.13	1	1	498,400
14	9.1	9.65	5.3	7.3	7.25	2.5	1	198,800
15	6.08	7.31	6.98	8.78	8.89	7.5	20	709,000
16	1.35	1.63	1.55	1.95	1.98	3	3	431,800
17	0.68	0.81	0.78	0.98	0.99	2.5	1	477,300
18	5.4	6.5	6.2	7.8	7.9	11.51	17.26	734,300
19	1.7	2.2	2	1.3	2	0.75	2	238,600
20	4.25	5.5	5	3.25	5	2.5	1	442,000
21	2.55	3.3	3	1.95	3	3	1	808,800
22	5.2	5.1	9.8	5.6	5.7	1.5	4	160,100
23	3.9	3.83	7.35	4.2	4.28	1	1	817,100
24	2.6	2.55	4.9	2.8	2.85	2.5	1	834,300
25	1.3	1.28	2.45	1.4	1.43	3	1	846,100

Table 7 Portfolios selected.

ISM	PROMETHEE V;	c-optimum;	c-optimum;
ISM	c = p = 14	c = 15	c = 16
1	0	0	1
2	0	1	1
3	1	0	0
4	1	1	0
5	1	1	1
6	0	1	0
7	0	1	1
8	0	0	0
9	1	1	1
10	1	0	1
11	1	0	0
12	1	1	1
13	1	1	1
14	1	1	1
15	1	1	1
16	1	1	1
17	0	0	1
18	1	1	1
19	1	1	1
20	1	1	1
21	0	0	0
22	1	1	1
23	0	0	0
24	0	0	0
25	0	0	0

Table 8 Portfolios performance per criterion.

Criteria	PROMETHEE V;	c-optimum;	c-optimum;
Criteria	c = p = 14	c = 15	c = 16
C1	0,819	0,828	0,789
C2	0,839	0,840	0,828
C3	0,729	0,730	0,697
C4	0,801	0,802	0,771
C5	0,797	0,809	0,788
C6	0,620	0,550	0,470
C7	0,673	0,663	0,663

How to cite

copy

Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Operacional Rua Mayrink Veiga, 32 - sala 601 - Centro, 20090-050 Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil, Tel.: +55 21 2263-0499, Fax: +55 21 2263-0501 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: sobrapo@sobrapo.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

PORTFOLIO SELECTION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROJECTS USING PROMETHEE V WITH C-OPTIMAL CONCEPT

PlumX

Mensagem

[1] *Corresponding author