Search results

The purpose of this paper is to develop a new comprehensive metric to successfully plan and execute IT projects. The development will be based on a study of all the variables that go into making a successful IT project.

A questionnaire, containing qualitative and quantitative response questions, to gather data from practicing project managers is designed and used in an IT company. Cronbach’s alpha is used to analyze the data and multiple regression is used to find the equation relating project success to project management success.

A comprehensive variable called Project Health Index (PHI) has been identified. Using this variable, one can predict whether a project is likely to succeed or not. This comprehensive, composite variable is calculated by using 17 other project-related metrics identified from the responses to the questionnaire.

The PHI has been calculated for the company studied. However, more studies need to be performed before it can be established that the PHI can also be used in other companies and projects. What has been established and validated is that PHI can be used in the studied company and that the methodology to calculate PHI is valid.

The PHI can be used as a predictive variable, i.e. one that can be used to take corrective and preventive actions to make a project successful. The PHI can also be used to allocate resources, prioritize the allocation and improve project management during the course of project execution.

By implementing projects efficiently, resource utilisation increases and leads to waste avoidance. Improved sustainability is the end result.

The work is original. The contents and the conclusions drawn, as well as the use of the PHI will enable IT companies to implement projects efficiently, reduce cost and enhance profit.

A bridge network is a major capital asset that requires continuing investment in order to maintain the network within acceptable limits of safety and serviceability. Ranking and prioritizing procedures have been widely used by several departments of transportation to select bridges for intervention and to distribute the available funds among competing projects. The available ranking and prioritizing procedures have various drawbacks, and an improved, rational ranking and prioritizing procedure is needed. The paper aims to address these issues.

The requirements and characteristics of an innovative ranking and prioritizing method are identified during interviews with professionals involved in bridge management. Based on these requirements, multi‐attribute utility theory (MAUT) is selected to develop the method. A technique to develop utility functions based on the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is discussed. A hierarchy structure that captures the decision‐making elements is presented. A case study is used to demonstrate the applicability and the validity of the proposed ranking method.

The research findings have identified the decision objectives and the criteria essential to rank and prioritize bridge projects, and these are included within a framework to rank and prioritize bridge projects while incorporating experts' input in the process.

The proposed framework includes weights for the various objectives and recommends utility functions to evaluate the different attributes. In addition, the framework provides flexibility to adjust the weights and to modify the utility functions to reflect network‐specific characteristics. This method can be used by departments of transportation to rank bridges in a network, even incorporating conflicting criteria, and it can be integrated within an already implemented bridge management methodology.

Ranking and prioritizing projects are essential steps in bridge management. Current methods for ranking and prioritizing bridge projects are associated with various drawbacks. This paper proposes an innovative ranking method for bridge networks, based on MAUT. This theory provides flexibility for the decision makers in expressing their degree of satisfaction with each bridge attribute.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.