See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329277808

PROJECT SELECTION FOR GROUP DECISION MAKING: A MULTIPLE PROJECT

PERSPECTIVE FROM PAKISTAN

Article in Business And Management Studies An International Journal · November 2018

DOI: 10.15295/v6i3.377

CITATIONS READS

0 336

4 authors, including:

Muhammad Imran Siti Norasyikin

Universiti Utara Malaysia Universiti Utara Malaysia
35 PUBLICATIONS 745 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 359 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Azelin Aziz
Universiti Utara Malaysia
32 PUBLICATIONS 347 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Entrepreneurial Finance View project

Agency Theory View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Farhan Basheer on 02 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BMIJ BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT STUDIES:
ISSN: 2148-2586 AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Vol.: 6 Issue: 3 Year: 2018, pp. 190-203

Citation: Bashir M.F & Imran M. & Hamid S.N.A. & Aziz A.(2018), Project Selection For Group
Decision Making: A Multiple Project Perspective From Pakistan, BMIJ, (2018), 6(3): 190-203 doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v6i3.377

PROJECT SELECTION FOR GROUP DECISION MAKING: A MULTIPLE

PROJECT PERSPECTIVE FROM PAKISTAN1

Muhammad Farhan BASHEER2 Received Date (Başvuru Tarihi): 01/11/2018

3
Muhammad IMRAN Accepted Date (Kabul Tarihi): 15/11/2018
Siti Norasyikin Abdul HAMID 4
Published Date (Yayın Tarihi): 30/11/2018
Azelin AZIZ5

ABSTRACT

Decision making is one of the primary functions of management. Making strategic decisions are important to
achieve organisational efficiency and effectiveness. In the selection of projects, it is necessary for organisations to
prioritise their projects due to limited resources. Therefore, the selection of projects that bring value and substantial impact
on the organisation is very important to ensure that they can compete in the dynamic external environment and meet the
goals and objectives. From the case study, the result suggests that the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method can
contribute significantly to the identification of sources that need further clarification of attributes and criteria and at the
same time it can provide a systematic analytical tool in making a group decision. This method allows the organisation to
prioritize its projects based on certain criteria as it is a quantitative decision support tool. In conclusion, AHP is the best
and efficient method for decision makers to consider all facts, weigh the pluses and minuses, reach, reevaluate and
communicate their decisions.
Keywords: Decision Making, AHP Method, Project
JEL Codes: C12, C61

GRUP KARAR VERME PROJESİ SEÇİMİ: PAKİSTAN'DAN ÇOKLU BİR PROJE

PERSPEKTİFİ
ÖZ

Karar verme, yönetimin temel işlevlerinden biridir. Stratejik kararlar vermek, organizasyonel etkinlik ve
verimlilik elde etmek için önemlidir. Projelerin seçiminde, kuruluşların sınırlı kaynaklardan dolayı projelerini
önceliklendirmesi gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle, organizasyona değer ve önemli etki yaratan projelerin seçimi, dinamik dış
ortamlarda rekabet edebilmelerini ve amaç ve hedefleri karşılayabilmelerini sağlamak için çok önemlidir. Vaka
çalışmasından elde edilen sonuç, Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) yönteminin, niteliklerin ve kriterlerin daha fazla açıklığa
kavuşturulması gereken kaynakların tanımlanmasına önemli ölçüde katkıda bulunabileceğini ve aynı zamanda bir grup
kararında sistematik bir analitik araç sağlayabileceğini göstermektedir. Bu yöntem, kurumun projelerini nicel bir karar
destek aracı olduğu için belirli kriterlere göre önceliklendirmesine izin verir. Sonuç olarak, AHP’nin, karar vericilerin
tüm gerçekleri dikkate almalarnıı, artıları ve eksileri değerlendirmelerini, ulaşmalarını, yeniden değerlendirmelerini ve
kararlarını iletmelerini sağlayan en iyi ve etkili yöntem olduğu söylenebilmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Karar Verme, AHP Yöntemi, Proje
JEL Kodları: C12, C61

1
Bu çalışma “Business and Organization Research Conference-BOR 2018” adlı kongrede yayınlanmıştır.
2
School of Economics, Finance and Banking, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia, [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-
0001-8622-9866
3
School of Business Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia, [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0001-
7126-2831
4
School of Business Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia, [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9130-
3650
5
School of Business Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia, [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0946-
121X

Business & Management Studies: An International Journal Vol.:6 Issue:3 Year:2018, pp. 190-203
 Muhammed F. BASHIR & Muhammed IMRAN & Siti N. A. HAMID & Azelin AZIZ

INTRODUCTION
Decision making is important for any organisation (Saaty, 2008). Many organisations are now
expanding their operations involving project management (ibid). Making a decision is the result of a
mental process of choosing some actions from several alternatives. A wrong decision can cost
organisations in various ways. While making decision, the factor of human capital is equally important
because people, as humanbeings, are involved in decision-making process. “Human capital is a factor
that should be considered as being a form of competitive advantage for organisations because it is the
collection of all of the intelligence, experience, and insights of organisational members” (Aydin and
Rahman, 2017). Hence, human capital enables organizations in gaining competitive edge and their
experiences help organizations in making right decisions. Every decision-making process produces a
final choice of action or opinion. If a person neither acts nor gives an opinion, a decision is also made
(Saaty, 2008). Most decisions involve analyzing the existing selection set or using a part of the criteria
set. These criteria may cause benefit or cost to the organization. Decision making is a part of the
managerial task and for a good decision to be made, all information, regarding planning and the
environment, must be known. Decision making currently is a mathematical science. It formulizes
thinking process so better decisions can be made. To make a good decision, some fundamental
understanding of the valuable processes are need to be known (Saaty, 2008).
Decision making always involves a choice among alternatives. A decision maker needs
information on which base to found his/her judgement; without information, decisions are no more
than an inspired guesswork. According to Simon (2011), knowledge management is a part of the whole
process of managerial decision making. According to Saaty (2008), a good decision means making the
right choice that satisfies many needs, for the greatest advantage. Generally, there are three levels of
decision making. They are strategic, tactical and operational. The strategic level is the highest level of
decision, the least structured, most imaginative, risky, and produces the most uncertain outcome. Such
decisions are taken mostly at the Board of Director’s level. The tactical level supports the strategic
level. Tactical decisions are medium range and have medium significance with moderate
consequences. The operational level is the lowest level, used in operational, short range and usually
involves low cost (Ang, 2005). In making decision, a manager is responsible in identifying problems,
determining the types of problem, finding the right solutions, assessing potential solutions and
formulating strategies for solving the problems. According to Ricardo (2010), due to ever changing in
dynamic current environment, selecting and making the right choices based on aligned objectives is a
critical factor for the organizational survival.

PROJECT SELECTION FOR GROUP DECISION MAKING: A MULTIPLE PROJECT PERSPECTIVE FROM PAKISTAN 191
 bmij (2018) 6 (3): 190-203

Decision making is not necessarily made by an individual person; currently, many

organisations involve group decision making. Making decisions as a group is known as collaborative
decision making, which occurs when individuals join in selecting from a range of choices. In group
decision making, a member's contribution directly affects the decision made (Sa, 2011).
According to Ang (2005), group decisions have a greater risk or opportunity than individual
decisions and it typically requires numerous meetings. Therefore, what the decision makers need is a
better approach to decision making that allows the necessary requirements on the alternatives. This is
due to the environment being complex with having higher multiplicity, flux, interdependence and
ambiguity (Haque, Aydin and Uysal, 2017). “In the situation of multiplicity where frequency of likely
interacting attributes increases. As the organisation grows, the managerial roles are not confined to
small number of stakeholders but the numbers of stakeholders multiply at constantly changing rate so
decision-making, negotiation, action roles, communication, and even emotional stability are to be
ensured by leaders (Haque et al., 2017). One structured approach to decision making that may work
well, is Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), which uses simple judgment known as pair-wise
comparison. An example of decision making is human resource decision (Rubin, 1991), decision
making on supplier selection (Athawale, Mukherjee and Chakraborty, 2009) and project selection
(Palcic and Lalic, 2009).
According to Powers, Ruwanpura, Dolhan, and Chu (2002), project selection is the process of
assessing individual projects, that is, selecting projects based on a specific analysis on how best to
achieve the organizational objectives. It involves an analysis of the importance of the financial aspects
of the project to determine the most optimum of the available alternatives. Srivannaboon and Milosevic
(2006) showed that most organisations try to implement their corporate strategies through projects.
Archer and Ghasemzadeh (1999) said that successful selection of a project is the result of the right set
of projects for implementation of corporate strategies.
With limited resources and capabilities, selecting the right project and right mix of projects in
the portfolio is an important task for the organization to achieve its corporate goal (Englund and
Graham, 1999). According to Parcic and Lalic (2009), to save cost and enjoy maximum benefits,
selection of a project must be made. A project can be very complex or very routine; regardless of the
nature of the project, it involves constraints in terms of time, budget and resources. According to
Clifford (2003), one of the aims of a project is to meet the stakeholder’s needs. According to Mwosa
(1987), projects are like planning to build blocks, which success depends on translating the plans into
reality. Managers can plan effectively on how the available resources can be used to meet the
organizational objectives.

Business & Management Studies: An International Journal Vol.:6 Issue:3 Year:2018 192
 Muhammed F. BASHIR & Muhammed IMRAN & Siti N. A. HAMID & Azelin AZIZ

The three projects planned have their own set of challenges and problems, as follows: (a) lack
of information on financial matters; (b) lack of strategic alliances with the project objectives; (c)
procedural requirements from regulatory bodies; and (d) lack of resources. Due to these factors and
limited resources, prioritization of the project is the first strategy that the college needs to decide.
Selecting the best project that optimizes the college’s resources is very important. To achieve this,
determining the project criteria and important factor is crucial. However, many project managers today
use their judgement to select the best project. Selection of projects is a very important decision because
if the projects are not able to be completed on time and incur more costs, it can affect the image and
effectiveness of the company (Iman and Siew, 2008). Therefore, the present research recommends that
decision makers use Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method to select the criteria and prioritize
the projects.
The purpose of this research is to recommend managers about the selection criteria that need
to be considered in prioritizing the project and assisting them in evaluating and selecting the project
that can maximize the resources the company has. Hence, the objectives of this research are:
1. To identify the criteria for selecting the most appropriate and relevant projects; and
2. To determine the projects those best meet the criteria of the organization

LITERATURE REVIEW
Project Selection Criteria
The term ‘selection’ may be defined as a process of choosing from a group of people or things
(Oxford, 2005). The term ‘criterion’, on the other hand, is defined in the Oxford dictionary (2005), as
a standard or principle determinant in decision making or judgement. Therefore, ‘selection criteria’
used in this research is defined as a list of criteria used to evaluate projects for a good selection. Ricardo
(2010) identified six criteria of selection of projects. In his case study on ACME organization, the
criteria and sub-criteria for selecting projects were stakeholder’s commitment (team commitment,
organizational commitment and project manager commitment), financial indicators (return on
investment, profit and net present value), strategies of the companies (improve ability to compete in
international markets, improve internal processes and improve reputation) and other criteria (lower
threat for the organization, urgency, and internal technical knowledge). Melone and Wharton (1984)
discussed three criteria of project selection. They are financial benefits, contribution to organizational
strategy, and contribution to IT structure. Pinto (2007) suggested the following criteria of project
selection: technical risk, financial criteria, safety criteria, quality and legal exposure, expected return
on investment, payback period of the investment, potential market share and ability to generate new
projects.

PROJECT SELECTION FOR GROUP DECISION MAKING: A MULTIPLE PROJECT PERSPECTIVE FROM PAKISTAN 193
 bmij (2018) 6 (3): 190-203

Financial Aspect
Palcic and Lalic (2009) used financial benefit as a criterion in selecting and evaluating projects.
Financial benefit focuses on the physical benefits of the project, which are subdivided into short term
and long-term benefits. Commonly, many organisations or business today develop standard ROI
calculator using Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) to measure the
performance of the projects. Motta and Quintella (2012), used financial and non-financial criteria to
select an investment project. An example of a financial criterion was need for capital (Basheer, 2014:
Basheer et al, 2019), while nonfinancial criteria were assessment of team and technology. Other
financial criteria include assessment of market and divestment, which were combined with market
size, volume of transactions, and availability of investment resources. Other non-financial aspects like
qualitative market evolution and strategic interests of players in the area were also considered.
In general, many organisations select projects based on financial criteria. If a project can
resolve issues relating to the user and allows the aid in the growth of the organization, the projects are
selected, otherwise they are rejected. Larson and Gray (2011) argued that when there is high
confidence in the estimates of future benefits in terms of profit, financial measures are used. To them,
profit return is important for a project, but this return should not be the only criterion in a project
selection process. A firm’s core competencies and long-term performance should also be considered.
Strategy
This criterion is very important to achieve corporate strategy because the projects are the
manifestation of the company’s strategy. Cooper et al. (2000) argued that corporate strategy must be
aligned in the project selection and resource allocation to those projects. However, to assess the
effectiveness of a project that contributes to the objectives of the company or its corporate strategy is
not a simple matter since strategy is dynamic and constantly changing. Furthermore, strategy is
different from one organization to the other (Imran, Hamid and Aziz, 2018). According to Le and
Nguyen (2007), to select the right projects which contribute to the successful implementation of the
corporate strategy is very challenging. Seeber (2011) stated that one of the criteria to be considered in
selecting a project is strategic fit with the mission of the projects. To him, if the organization lacks
strategic fit with the mission, the organization has failed in project selection (Imran et al., 2018). Palcic
and Lalic (2009) used contribution to organizational strategy as one of the criteria, which was
subdivided into three: increasing market share, retaining existing customers and improve cost
management.
According to Ricardo (2010), one of the criteria that can be used in prioritizing projects is
strategy. The common method to measure corporate strategy is Balanced Scorecard. This method is
different from financial criteria because strategic criteria are specific to an organization (Imran, Aziz

Business & Management Studies: An International Journal Vol.:6 Issue:3 Year:2018 194
 Muhammed F. BASHIR & Muhammed IMRAN & Siti N. A. HAMID & Azelin AZIZ

and Hamid, 2017; Javed and Basheer, 2017). Not all organisations have the same strategy and these
strategies have different prioritization criteria (Imran, Aziz and Hamid, 2016, 2017a, 2017b).
Examples of different strategies and goals are to increase the production, to compete in international
markets, to optimize internal processes, to lessen costs and to compare and to benchmark to
competitors and to improve the reputation of products and services.
Risk
According to Zou (2007), the selection process is unique because it always has to deal with risk
and risk management. These selection criteria should be considered when making selection decision.
According to Pinto (2010), risks in project selection criteria are technical risk, financial risk, safety
risk, quality risk, and legal exposure. The AHP, as shown by Mustafa and Al-Bahar (1991), provides
both a subjective and objective approach to risk analysis using expert judgement. However, this
approach cannot integrate these risk analyses with the project management processes. Recently, Zayed
et al. (2008) have applied the AHP to assess risk in Chinese highway projects. The framework
prioritizes risk factors and ranks alternative projects. However, their approach does not discuss on how
to manage risk during the planning and implementation phases of the projects as indicated in the project
risk management standards. Dey (2008) used the AHP method to identify five risks in oil redefining
industry. They were technical risk, financial and economic risk, organizational risk, natural hazards
and statutory clearance risk.
Contractor Availability
In case study conducted by Al Subhi, (2001), contractor availability was used as a selection
criterion in project management. To determine a set of criteria that are necessary to determine the
contractor’s competence and ability in project bid, the screening by construction contractors was used.
The contractor availability criteria such as experience, financial stability, quality performance,
manpower resources, equipment resources, and current workload were determined for these project
selection criteria. Bertolini et al. (2006), and Mahdi and Alreshaid (2005) proposed the application of
the AHP method in their work. In their case studies, they used this method to select the service
providers in the public sector and highlighted 31 decision criteria, of which the most important were
cost, public work contract type involving penalties, price and changes during work, risk, type of work,
availability of material and taskforce and conflict of interests between owner and contractor.
Technical Knowledge
Technical knowledge is necessary to execute a project. The more the technical knowledge
available for the projects and environment, the easier it will be to execute any given project and,
consequently, it will cause the project to use fewer resources (Ricardo, 2010: Basheer et al., 2018).
Ricardo used technical knowledge criterion to prioritize the projects. Wheeler (2013) identified several

PROJECT SELECTION FOR GROUP DECISION MAKING: A MULTIPLE PROJECT PERSPECTIVE FROM PAKISTAN 195
 bmij (2018) 6 (3): 190-203

criteria in project selection. They were culture of the organization, process incurred in the projects,
knowledge of the business and works, experience gained on projects, corporate governance, risk
awareness on the projects, and time pressures. All these factors had significant effect especially on
public sector organisations, private sector organisations and government-owned corporations. As a
result, these corporations must have a strong linkage to research on strategic decision making.

Selection of Best
Project

Level 1

Level 2

Corporate Contractor Technical

Financial
Strategy Risk (RS) Availability Knowledge
(FIN)
(CS) (CA) (TK)

Level 3

Project A Project B Project C

Figure 1. Decision Hierarchy Structure

The Analytical Hierarchy Process

Dr. Thomas Saaty developed the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in the late 1960’s. His
goal was to develop a simple, consistent way to make complex decisions. The AHP is an effective
method developed to overcome decision difficulties by using weighted criteria. Analytic Hierarchy

Business & Management Studies: An International Journal Vol.:6 Issue:3 Year:2018 196
 Muhammed F. BASHIR & Muhammed IMRAN & Siti N. A. HAMID & Azelin AZIZ

Process relies on three fundamental assumptions deduced from the words of the technique (Mahdi,
2005). The AHP benefits group decision making because group members can use their experience,
values and knowledge to break down a problem into a hierarchy and solve it by the AHP steps.

In 2005, Mahdi, an Associate Professor from Chemical Engineering Department, College of

Engineering and Petroleum, Kuwait University, presented a case study on the use of AHP method in
Kuwait’s Power Station Air Pollution Control. He found that AHP allows the use of non-quantifiable
parameters such as environmental, social and political criteria besides quantifiable cost-effective
technical and economic factors. Palcic and Lalic (2009) used AHP in project selection in assigning
priority and for making appropriate decisions. In his case research on information technology-oriented
company, Henny (2006) applied the AHP approach to design a structural model of the decision-making
process in which AHP plays a role.

Methodology

Cross sectional research design was used because the data collection was completed within
three months. To gather the data, snowball sampling technique was used because the main target
audiences were top management and executives primarily involved in the decision-making process.
Thus, the referral technique suited most to the research objectives. We targeted the one of the most
advanced and largest enterprise of Pakistan, Bahria Town Real Estate and construction firm involved
in over 1,000 construction projects. The reason for selecting Bahria Group is, the fact that it is the only
group to have a construction project in every major city of Pakistan. Open-ended survey was used as
research instrument. According to the official list 87 total employees working at executive level in the
top management was attained from the firm’s official website. Thus, we ensured that majority of the
respondents could be included, hence, we set the criteria of majority being over 50%. By reaching 48
respondents, attained 55.1% was attained, reflecting that we had clear over 50% target population to
draw conclusion. The tri-angulation approach was used to ensure the reliability and validity aspects.
We also considered appropriate steps to ensure ethical considerations are kept intact. Furthermore,
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to investigate the decision-making process at Bahria
Group.
Results and Discussion

The respondents had an average of 15 years of service with the company. Of 48 respondents,
29 (60.41%) were frequently involved in decision-making while remaining 19 (39.59%) were
involved on immediate basis. With regards to educational qualification, majority of the respondents
had Master’s degree (52%) in relevant field with over 15 years of experience suggesting that they

PROJECT SELECTION FOR GROUP DECISION MAKING: A MULTIPLE PROJECT PERSPECTIVE FROM PAKISTAN 197
 bmij (2018) 6 (3): 190-203

qualified in evaluating and selecting the most appropriate projects to be prioritized in the company. In
addition, all the respondents considered the criteria when selecting of the projects.

AHP Analysis

AHP methods was used to analyse the five selection criteria. These include pair-wise
comparison, calculating the relative weights and eigenvector and the consistency ratio. The
establishment of priority among criteria was based on pair-wise comparisons. They tabulated into the
pairwise comparison matrix to assess the criteria. In the pair-wise comparison matrix, the diagonal
elements are always equal to one, and the lower triangle elements of the matrix are the reciprocal of
the upper triangle elements (Zahedi, 1986).
Table 1 shows the data collected from the General Managers. The first row ranked scale of
five, means Financial is strongly more important to Strategic criteria. Ranked scale of three, means
Financial is moderately more important to Risk criteria and ranked scale of four, means Financial is
moderately strongly more important to Urgency.

Table 1. Pair-wise Comparison for Criteria – General Manager

Criteria FN ST RK CA TK
FN 1.0000 2.0000 4.0000 3.0000 4.0000
ST 3.0000 1.0000 5.0000 2.0000 3.0000
RK 2.0000 4.0000 1.0000 5.0000 2.0000
CA 5.0000 3.0000 4.0000 1.0000 5.0000
TK 4.0000 2.0000 5.0000 3.0000 1.0000

When comparing between the financial and strategic criteria position, it means that the Financial
criterion was five times more important that the Strategic criterion. One always enters the whole
number in its appropriate position and automatically enters its reciprocal in the transpose position.

Table 2. Normalized Matrix

Criteria FN ST RK CA TK
FN 0.447 0.526 0.419 0.286 0.470
ST 0.190 0.105 0.270 0.143 0.059
RK 0.149 0.053 0.139 0.214 0.235
CA 0.134 0.190 0.046 0.123 0.133
TK 0.080 0.126 0.126 0.234 0.103
Total 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Business & Management Studies: An International Journal Vol.:6 Issue:3 Year:2018 198
 Muhammed F. BASHIR & Muhammed IMRAN & Siti N. A. HAMID & Azelin AZIZ

Table 3. Ranking
Criteria Priority Ranking
FN 0.347 0.526
ST 0.290 0.105
RK 0.159 0.053
CA 0.124 0.190
TK 0.080 0.126

The consistency ratio considering that humans are error-prone and often inconsistent, the AHP
allows some degree of errors and inconsistencies in the decision maker’s judgments (Min, 1992). The
consistency ratio tells us how consistent we are with our ranking. A higher number means we are less
consistent, whereas a lower number means that we are more consistent. According to the rule of thumb
suggested by Saaty (1980), a consistency ratio (CR) of 0.10 (10%) or less is considered an acceptable
margin; otherwise, the decision maker should then reevaluate his/her ranking scores. Figure 4.1 is the
formula and calculation of the consistency ratio.

CR = Consistency index (CI)/ Random index (RI)

Where CI = λ – n/ n – 1

n = number of decision elements in the consideration

λ = the average value of consistency vector

RI = mean CI of a randomly generated reciprocal matrix from a ratio scale of 1 to 9, as in Table 4

(Render & Stair, 2000).

Table 4. Random Index

Criteria Priority
2 0
3 0.58
4 0.9
5 1.12
6 1.24
7 1.32
8 1.41

PROJECT SELECTION FOR GROUP DECISION MAKING: A MULTIPLE PROJECT PERSPECTIVE FROM PAKISTAN 199
 bmij (2018) 6 (3): 190-203

Table 5. Weighted Sum Vector and Consistency Vector

Criteria FN ST RK CA TK Priority Wt. Sum Consistency
Vector vector
FN 1.0000 2.0000 4.0000 3.0000 4.0000 0.347 1.567 5.476
ST 3.0000 1.0000 5.0000 2.0000 3.0000 0.290 1.453 5.565
RK 2.0000 4.0000 1.0000 5.0000 2.0000 0.159 0.826 5.295
CA 5.0000 3.0000 4.0000 1.0000 5.0000 0.124 0.878 5.317
TK 4.0000 2.0000 5.0000 3.0000 1.0000 0.080 0.479 5.601

Subsequently, the value of lambda (λ) was computed by taking the average value of the consistency
vector, i.e. (5.476 + 5.565 + 5.295 + 5.317 + 5.601) / 5 = 5.449. Therefore, CI = (λ-n)/(n-1) = (5.449
– 5)/5 - 1 = 0.112 CR = consistency index (CI) / random index (RI) = 0.011 / 1.13 = 0.0091. In this
case, the CR 0.009 shows that pair-wise comparison was deemed consistent within the acceptable
random variations for this decision maker.

Table 6. Summary of Results for AHP Analysis

Selection Criteria Wt Rank

Project C 0.435 1
Project B 0.355 2
Project A 0.210 3

Based on the results from the AHP method and the objectives of the research to identify
selection criteria that are the most appropriate and relevant in project selection, financial (FN) criterion
showed the highest mean ranking of 0.389. This means that the financial aspect was the most
appropriate and relevant in project selection. The group decision makers considered financial aspect
as the most important criterion that impacts the organization. On the other hand, technical knowledge
(TK) was the least preferred selection criterion. In determining which projects that best meet the
requirements of the organization, Project C, which had the highest mean ranking of 0.435, should be
selected. It means that the management must focus on this project in their prioritization of their
projects. However, Project B had a mean ranking of 0.355, which was not significantly different from
Project A. But in terms of contractor availability (CA) and technical knowledge (TK) criteria, Project
B had shown a high ranking.

Conclusion

In selection of projects, it necessary for organisations to prioritize their projects due to limited
resources. Therefore, the selection of projects that bring value and substantial impact on the
organisation is very important to ensure that they can compete in the dynamic external environment
and meet the goals and objectives. From the case study, the result suggests that the AHP method can

Business & Management Studies: An International Journal Vol.:6 Issue:3 Year:2018 200
 Muhammed F. BASHIR & Muhammed IMRAN & Siti N. A. HAMID & Azelin AZIZ

contribute significantly to the identification of sources that need further clarification of attributes and
criteria and at the same time providing a systematic analytical tool in making group decision. In
conclusion, AHP is the best and efficient method for decision makers to consider all facts, weigh the
pluses and minuses, reach, reevaluate and communicate their decision.

In respect of implication, this research helps to owners / managers for effective decision making
for the selection of new project. Furthermore, the right decision making, and right selection of project
leads to higher firm performance. However, this research findings are not only beneficial for student’s
project selection, this is beneficial for business firms as well.

PROJECT SELECTION FOR GROUP DECISION MAKING: A MULTIPLE PROJECT PERSPECTIVE FROM PAKISTAN 201
 bmij (2018) 6 (3): 190-203

REFERENCES
Ang. (2005). Using AHP in ERP software for group decision making. Unpublished technical report, Universiti Utara
Malaysia, Sintok.
Alexander, L. G., & McKeown, T. J. (1985). Case studies and theories of organizational decision making. Advances in
Information processing in Organizations, 2, 2-58.
Al-Subhi, K. M. (2001). Application of the AHP in project management. International Journal of Project Management,
19, 19-27.
Andrew, J. C., & Mahmoud, M. Y. (2003). Managing the project management process. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 103(1), 39-46.
Asaka, F. O. (2008). Projects selection and management implications in Kenyan local authorities. Asian Journal of Business
and Management Sciences,1(10), 65-75.
Athawale, M. C. (2009). Supplier selection using multi criteria decision making methods. Journal of Operations
Management, 8, 41-60.
Aydin, E., & Rahman, M. (2017). Theoretical Perspectives to Diversity in Management Research. Journal of Management
Research, 9(2), 160-170.
Bhushan, N., & Rai, K. (2004). Strategic decision making: Applying the analytic hierarchy process. New York: Springer.
Basheer, M. F., KhorramI, A. A. A., & Hassan, S. G. (2018). PATRONAGE FACTORS OF ISLAMIC BANKING
SYSTEM IN PAKISTAN. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 22, 1-9.
Basheer, M., Ahmad, A., & Hassan, S. (2019). Impact of economic and financial factors on tax revenue: Evidence from
the Middle East countries. Accounting, 5(2), 53-60.
Basheer, M. F. (2014). Impact of Corporate Governance on Corporate Cash Holdings: An empirical study of firms in
manufacturing industry of Pakistan. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 7(4), 1371.
Burton, C., &Suedel, J. K. (2009). Comparison of the direct scoring method and multi criteria decision analysis for dredged
material management decision making.
Charvat, J. (2003). Project management methodologies: Selecting, implementing, and supporting methodologies and
processes for project. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Clifford, F. C., & Larson, W. E. (2003). Management process (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Ltd.
Colin, O. B. (1985). A linear goal-programming model for public-sector project selection. The Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 36(1). 13-23.
Costa, H. R., Barros, M. O., & Rocha, A. R. C. (2010). Software project portfolio selection: A modern portfolio theory
based technique. Proceedings of the 22nd Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering Conference. San
Francisco, EUA.
Eddie W. L. (2002). Analytical hierarchy process: A defective tool when used improperly. Measuring Business Excellence,
6, 33-37.
Haque, A. U., Aydin, E., and Uysal, E. (2017). A Comparison of Effectiveness of Global Leaders and Domestic Leaders
in Electronic Retail Industry, The Global Journal of Management Research, 17(2), 11-20.
Imran, M., Aziz, A., & Hamid, S. (2016). Moderating role of environmental turbulence on the relationship between
entrepreneurial orientation, business networks orientation, export market orientation and SMEs export
performance: a research framework. Journal of Business Management, Commerce & Research, IV(XV).
Imran, M., Aziz, A., & Hamid, S. (2017a). The Relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation, Business Networks
Orientation, Export Market Orientation and SME Export Performance: A Proposed Research Framework.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(10), 230-248.
doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i10/3372

Business & Management Studies: An International Journal Vol.:6 Issue:3 Year:2018 202
 Muhammed F. BASHIR & Muhammed IMRAN & Siti N. A. HAMID & Azelin AZIZ

Imran, M., Aziz, A., & Hamid, S. (2017b). Total Quality Management, Export Market Orientation and Firm Export
Performance: A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social
Sciences, 7(9), 591-601. doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i9/3382
Imran, M., Aziz, A., & Hamid, S. (2017). Determinants of SME export performance. International Journal of Data and
Network Science, 1(2), 39-58.
Imran, M., Aziz, A., Hamid, S., Shabbir, M., Salman, R., & Jian, Z. (2018). The mediating role of total quality management
between entrepreneurial orientation and SMEsexport performance. Management Science Letters, 8(6), 519-532.
Imran, M., Hamid, S., & Aziz, A. (2018). The influence of TQM on export performance of SMEs: Empirical evidence
from manufacturing sector in Pakistan using PLS-SEM. Management Science Letters, 8(5), 483-496.
Javed, M. A., & Basheer, M. F. (2017). Impact of external factors on bank profitability. EPRA International Journal of
Research and Development, 2(5), 1-11.
Kendrick, J. D. (2007). Use of analytic hierarchy process for project selection. Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 5, 23-25.
Mahdi, K. A. (2002). Project selection by analytical hierarchy process: Case research-- Kuwait’s power station air pollution
control. Management Institute, 3, 67-72.
Mazur, J. L. (2005). Quality infrastructure improvement using QFD to manage project priorities and project management
resources. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22, 10-16.
Melone, N. P., & Wharton, T. J. (1984). Strategies for MIS project selection. Journal of Systems Management, 4, 26-33.
Morris, W. G., & Pinto, K. J. (2007). The Wiley guide to project organization and project management competencies.
New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Motta, G. S., &Quintella R. H. (2012). Assessment of non-financial criteria in the selection of investment projects for seed
capital funding: The contribution of scientometrics and patentometrics. Journal of Technology Management &
Innovation, 7(3), 5-7.
Mullins, J. L. (2005). Management and organizational behavior. Essex: Pearson Educ. Ltd.
Palcic and Lalic. (2009). Analytical hierarchy process as a tool for selecting and evaluating projects. Journal of
Management, 3, 45-53.
Pinto, J. (2007). Project management: Achieving competitive advantage. UK: Pearson Education.
Pinto, J. K., &Slevin, D.P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 34(1), 22-7.
Powers, Ruwanpura, Dolhan, and Chu. (2002). Simulation based project decision analysis tool. Journal of management
project, 5, 32-40.
Ricardo, V. V. (2010). Using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to select and prioritize projects in a portfolio.
International Journal of Management, 12(2), 321-333.
Ricardo, V. V. (2011). Urgency: A critical factor in project planning. International Journal of Management, 14(3), 231-
234.
Rubin, R. E. (1991). Human resource management in libraries: Theory and practice. New York: Neal-Schuman.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1),
83–98.
Swinscow TD, Campbell MJ. (2003). Statistics at square one. 10th ed. New Delhi, India: Viva Books Private Limited.
Triantaphyllou, E. (2002). Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative research. New York: Springer

PROJECT SELECTION FOR GROUP DECISION MAKING: A MULTIPLE PROJECT PERSPECTIVE FROM PAKISTAN 203

View publication stats