Developing an integrated dynamic model for evaluating the performance of research projects based on multiple attribute utility theory

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to develop an integrated dynamic model, based on empirical findings, which can be used in research centers for evaluating the performance of research projects by using multiple attribute utility theory.

Design/methodology/approach

In developing the model, the measures by which the performance of research projects could be evaluated are identified by Delphi method and group decision making. These measures are categorized into three general success factors of time, cost and quality. Then a multi‐attribute utility function is applied to integrate these dimensions to determine the utility resulting from the performance of the project.

Findings

Through literature review it is evident that some evaluation techniques such as checklists, scoring models, analytical hierarchy process and engineering economic techniques have been developed for evaluating performance of projects. The present model complements and improves upon the existing models.

Research limitations/implications

The parameters of model are determined based on research center's policy but they may be changed for other research centers. So the model depends on the expert's view. The model is not considered advantageous in situations where project gets ahead of program.

Practical implications

The model is tested in an engineering research institute and the comparison is made with the results of the existing models.

Originality/value

The advantage of proposed model is its flexibility, dynamism and the capability to revise the model based on any changes in the objectives and policies of the research center.

Citation

Najmi, M., Ehsani, R., Sharbatoghlie, A. and Saidi‐Mehrabad, M. (2009), "Developing an integrated dynamic model for evaluating the performance of research projects based on multiple attribute utility theory", Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 114-133. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465660910973943