Abstract
Sustainable development is one of the most fundamental scientific and practical fields of development in modern societies which its importance is more comprehensible in underdevelopment countries. Project management methodologies have been incorporated sustainable criteria to enhance the quality of their scope. The purpose of this research is to design an effective three-stage novel combination approach to estimate the sustainability utility of projects based on the sustainable principles and the ranking of projects through a novel multi-criteria house of portfolio in analytical network process (ANP) and quality function deployment (QFD) approaches. In the first step, using Sustainable Balanced Scorecard, key sustainability indicators are identified for ranking projects; then, using the QFD-ANP combination approach, identifying the relationships between the indicators, determining their significance and ranking projects are being implemented. Finally, the estimation of the sustainability utility function of reference projects is made according to the ranking of the projects from the QFD-ANP stage and using the UTASTAR method. The results of this research, in addition to identifying key indicators of sustainable development and classifying them in the form of Sustainable Balanced Scorecard, contain a prioritization pattern to select sustainable projects for current and future projects in an automotive company.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amiri, M. P. (2010). Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9), 6218–6224.
Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Chaparro-González, F., Pastor-Ferrando, J. P., & Pla-Rubio, A. (2014). An AHP (analytic hierarchy process)/ANP (analytic network process)-based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects. Energy, 66, 222–238.
Carazo, A. F., Gómez, T., Molina, J., Hernández-Díaz, A. G., Guerrero, F. M., & Caballero, R. (2010). Solving a comprehensive model for multiobjective project portfolio selection. Computers & Operations Research, 37(4), 630–639.
Dantzig, G. B., & Cottle, R. W. (1963). Positive (semi-) definite matrices and mathematical programming (No. ORC-63-18-RR). Operations Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
De Reyck, B., Grushka-Cockayne, Y., Lockett, M., Calderini, S. R., Moura, M., & Sloper, A. (2005). The impact of project portfolio management on information technology projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(7), 524–537.
Ehsanifar, M., Eshlaghi, A. T., Keramati, M. A., & Nazemi, J. (2013). The development of UTASTAR Method in fuzzy environment for supplier selection. Editors-in-Chief, 317.
Eik-Andresen, P., Landmark, A. D., & Johansen, A. (2015). Managing cost and time in a large portfolio of projects. Procedia Economics and Finance, 21, 502–509.
El-Haram, M., Walton, J., Horner, M., Hardcastle, C., Price, A., Bebbington, J., Thomson, C, & Atkin-Wright, T. (2007). Development of an integrated sustainability assessment toolkit. In Conference proceedings, international conference on whole life urban sustainability and its assessment.
Enea, M., & Piazza, T. (2004). Project selection by constrained fuzzy AHP. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 3(1), 39–62.
Fernandes, G., Moreira, S., Araújo, M., Pinto, E. B., & Machado, R. (2018). Project management practices for collaborative university-industry R&D: a hybrid approach. Procedia Computer Science, 138, 805–814.
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard–linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269–284.
Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2018). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22, 1–29.
Ghasemzadeh, F., & Archer, N. P. (2000). Project portfolio selection through decision support. Decision Support Systems, 29(1), 73–88.
Ghasemzadeh, F., Archer, N., & Iyogun, P. (1999). A zero-one model for project portfolio selection and scheduling. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(7), 745–755.
Goumas, M., & Lygerou, V. (2000). An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects. European Journal of Operational Research, 123(3), 606–613.
Govers, C. P. (2001). QFD not just a tool but a way of quality management. International Journal of Production Economics, 69(2), 151–159.
Green, R. H., Doyle, J. R., & Cook, W. D. (1996). Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 90(3), 461–472.
Grigoroudis, E., Orfanoudaki, E., & Zopounidis, C. (2012). Strategic performance measurement in a healthcare organisation: a multiple criteria approach based on balanced scorecard. Omega, 40(1), 104–119.
Habib, M., Khan, R., & Piracha, J. L. (2009). Analytic network process applied to R&D project selection. In: International conference on information and communication technologies, IEEE.
Hadjinicolaou, N., & Dumrak, J. (2017). Investigating association of benefits and barriers in project portfolio management to project success. Procedia Engineering, 182, 274–281.
Hsueh, S.-L., & Yan, M.-R. (2011). Enhancing sustainable community developments a multi-criteria evaluation model for energy efficient project selection. Energy Procedia, 5, 135–144.
Huang, C.-C., Chu, P.-Y., & Chiang, Y.-H. (2008). A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection. Omega, 36(6), 1038–1052.
Hunt, R., Killen, C. P., Hunt, R. A., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2008). Project portfolio management for product innovation. International journal of quality & reliability management. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710810843559.
Huylenbroeck, G., & Martens, L. (1992). The Average Value Ranking multi-criteria method for project evaluation in regional planning. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 19(2), 237–252.
Iamratanakul, S., Patanakul, P., & Milosevic, D. (2008). Project portfolio selection: From past to present. In 2008 4th IEEE international conference on management of innovation and technology, IEEE.
Institute, P. M. (2014). The standard for portfolio management, Project Management Institute.
Jacquet-Lagreze, E., & Siskos, J. (1982). Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 10(2), 151–164.
Kalender, Z. T., Vayvay, Ö., & Sciences, B. (2016). The fifth pillar of the balanced scorecard: sustainability. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 76–83.
Khalili-Damghani, K., & Sadi-Nezhad, S. (2013). A hybrid fuzzy multiple criteria group decision making approach for sustainable project selection. Applied Soft Computing, 13(1), 339–352.
Khalili-Damghani, K., Sadi-Nezhad, S., Lotfi, F. H., & Tavana, M. (2013). A hybrid fuzzy rule-based multi-criteria framework for sustainable project portfolio selection. Information Sciences, 220, 442–462.
Khalili-Damghani, K., & Tavana, M. (2014). A comprehensive framework for sustainable project portfolio selection based on structural equation modeling. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 83–97.
Kudratova, S., Huang, X., & Zhou, X. (2018). Sustainable project selection: optimal project selection considering sustainability under reinvestment strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 203, 469–481.
Labuschagne, C., & Brent, A. C. (2005). Sustainable project life cycle management: the need to integrate life cycles in the manufacturing sector. International Journal of Project Management, 23(2), 159–168.
Liberatore, M. J. (1987). An extension of the analytic hierarchy process for industrial R&D project selection and resource allocation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1, 12–18.
Linton, J. D., Walsh, S. T., & Morabito, J. (2002). Analysis, ranking and selection of R&D projects in a portfolio. R&D Management, 32(2), 139–148.
Liu, H.-T., & Wang, C.-H. (2010). An advanced quality function deployment model using fuzzy analytic network process. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 34(11), 3333–3351.
Mahmoodzadeh, S., Shahrabi, J., Pariazar, M., & Zaeri, M. (2007). Project selection by using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS technique. Engineering and Technology, 30, 333–338.
Markowitz, H. J. T. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91.
Martens, M. L., & Carvalho, M. M. (2017). Key factors of sustainability in project management context: a survey exploring the project managers’ perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1084–1102.
Meade, L. M., & Presley, A. (2002). R&D project selection using the analytic network process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(1), 59–66.
Meskendahl, S. (2010). The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success—a conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 807–817.
Moghadam, N. B., Samsami, M., Hosseini, S. H., & Sahafzadeh, M. (2015). Utilisation of BSC to transform corporate-level goals into project portfolio strategies. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 7(2), 132–150.
Mohammadi, F., Sadi, M. K., Nateghi, F., Abdullah, A., & Skitmore, M. (2014). A hybrid quality function deployment and cybernetic analytic network process model for project manager selection. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(6), 795–809.
Mohanty, R., Agarwal, R., Choudhury, A., & Tiwari, M. J. (2005). A fuzzy ANP-based approach to R&D project selection: a case study. International Journal of Production Research, 43(24), 5199–5216.
Möller, A., & Schaltegger, S. (2005). The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for eco-efficiency analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4), 73–83.
Müller, R., Martinsuo, M., & Blomquist, T. (2008). Project portfolio control and portfolio management performance in different contexts. Project Management Journal, 39(3), 28–42.
Nowak, M. (2013). Project portfolio selection using interactive approach. Procedia Engineering, 57, 814–822.
Ocampo, L. A. (2019). Applying fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS technique in identifying the content strategy of sustainable manufacturing for food production. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 21(5), 2225–2251.
Oral, M., Kettani, O., & Lang, P. (1991). A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects. Management Science, 37(7), 871–885.
Oztaysi, B. (2014). A decision model for information technology selection using AHP integrated TOPSIS-Grey: The case of content management systems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 70, 44–54.
Patanakul, P. (2015). Key attributes of effectiveness in managing project portfolio. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1084–1097.
Rabbani, A., Zamani, M., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2014). Proposing a new integrated model based on sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) and MCDM approaches by using linguistic variables for the performance evaluation of oil producing companies. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(16), 7316–7327.
Rahmani, N., A. Talebpour, T. J. P.-S. Ahmadi and B. Sciences (2012). “Developing aMulti criteria model for stochastic IT portfolio selection by AHP method.”Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 62: 1041-1045.
Saaty, T. (2001). The analytic network process RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Saaty, T. L., & Takizawa, M. (1986). Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 26(2), 229–237.
Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (1998). Diagnosis with dependent symptoms: Bayes theorem and the analytic hierarchy process. Operations Research, 46(4), 491–502.
Salehi, K. (2015). A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for project selection problem. Decision Science Letters, 4(1), 109–116.
Schauß, J., Hirsch, B., Sohn, M. J., & Change, O. (2014). Functional fixation and the balanced scorecard: Adaption of BSC users’ judgment processes. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 10(4), 540–566.
Schniederjans, M. J., & Wilson, R. L. (1991). Using the analytic hierarchy process and goal programming for information system project selection. Information & Management, 20(5), 333–342.
Shi, L., Wu, K.-J., & Tseng, M.-L. (2017). Improving corporate sustainable development by using an interdependent closed-loop hierarchical structure. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 119, 24–35.
Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2012). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 281–299.
Siskos, Y., & Yannacopoulos, D. (1985). UTASTAR: An ordinal regression method for building additive value functions. Investigaçao Operacional, 5(1), 39–53.
Tavana, M., Keramatpour, M., Santos-Arteaga, F. J., & Ghorbaniane, E. (2015). A fuzzy hybrid project portfolio selection method using data envelopment analysis, TOPSIS and integer programming. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(22), 8432–8444.
Tavana, M., Khosrojerdi, G., Mina, H., & Rahman, A. (2019). A hybrid mathematical programming model for optimal project portfolio selection using fuzzy inference system and analytic hierarchy process. Evaluation and Program Planning, 77, 101703.
Taylan, O., Bafail, A. O., Abdulaal, R. M., & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing, 17, 105–116.
Teller, J., Unger, B. N., Kock, A., & Gemünden, H. G. (2012). Formalization of project portfolio management: The moderating role of project portfolio complexity. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 596–607.
Thomson, C. S., M. A. El-Haram and R. Emmanuel (2011). Mapping sustainability assessment with the project life cycle. In Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers-engineering sustainability, Thomas Telford Ltd.
Tseng, M.-L. (2009). Application of ANP and DEMATEL to evaluate the decision-making of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 156(1–4), 181.
Tseng, M.-L., Lin, Y., Chiu, A., & Liao, J. C. (2008). Using FANP approach on selection of competitive priorities based on cleaner production implementation: a case study in PCB manufacturer, Taiwan. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 10(1), 17–29.
Warhurst, A. (2002). Sustainability indicators and sustainability performance management. Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development, 43, 129.
Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 26(7), 641–658.
Yang, Y., S. L. Yang and J. Yang (2013). A BSC-ANP model for evaluation of strategic fit of new product development projects. In 2013 25th Chinese control and decision conference (CCDC), IEEE.
Yüksel, İ., & Dağdeviren, M. (2010). Using the fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) for Balanced Scorecard (BSC): A case study for a manufacturing firm. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(2), 1270–1278.
Zhao, H., & Li, N. (2015). Evaluating the performance of thermal power enterprises using sustainability balanced scorecard, fuzzy Delphic and hybrid multi-criteria decision making approaches for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 569–582.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
In this section the tables of paired comparison and effect matrix obtained from arithmetic mean are shown.
1.1 Effect matrix of main criteria (internal dependence)
1.2 Matrix of pairwise comparisons of main criteria (Sustainable Balanced Scorecard respect to the target) (W SBRs)
Goal | C 1 | C 2 | C 3 | C 4 | C 5 | C 6 | W SBRs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 0.5 | 5 | 0.2856 |
C 2 | 0.25 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0.5 | 4 | 0.1448 |
C 3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0.2 | 4 | 0.112 |
C 4 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.25 | 3 | 0.0743 |
C 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0.3366 |
C 6 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.0468 |
1.3 Matrix of interdependence paired comparison of main criteria—from a financial perspective
C 1 | C 2 | C 3 | C 5 | C 6 | W |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C 2 | 1 | 2 | 0.5 | 4 | 0.2645 |
C 3 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.2 | 4 | 0.1284 |
C 5 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0.5327 |
C 6 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.0744 |
1.4 Special invariant vectors of internal relationship of main criteria (W 3)
W 3 | C 1 | C 2 | C 3 | C 4 | C 5 | C 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C 1 | 0 | 0.2175 | 0.3137 | 0 | 0.0383 | 0.3243 |
C 2 | 0.2645 | 0 | 0.1777 | 0 | 0.0743 | 0.1742 |
C 3 | 0.1284 | 0.1388 | 0 | 0.1991 | 0.1256 | 0.0834 |
C 4 | 0 | 0 | 0.0875 | 0 | 0.2258 | 0.3386 |
C 5 | 0.5327 | 0.5889 | 0.3408 | 0.7334 | 0 | 0.0796 |
C 6 | 0.0744 | 0.0549 | 0.0803 | 0.0675 | 0.536 | 0 |
1.5 Matrix of paired comparisons of sub-criteria with interdependence according to the main criteria (financial sub-criteria)
C 1 | A 11 | A 12 | A 13 | W |
|---|---|---|---|---|
A 11 | 1 | 0.25 | 0.11 | 0.064 |
A 12 | 4 | 1 | 0.17 | 0.1856 |
A 13 | 9.09 | 5.88 | 1 | 0.7504 |
1.6 Special invariant vectors of sub-criteria according to the main criteria (W 2)
W 2 | C 1 | C 2 | C 3 | C 4 | C 5 | C 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A 11 | 0.064 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
A 12 | 0.1856 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
A 13 | 0.7504 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
A 21 | 0 | 0.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
A 22 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
A 31 | 0 | 0 | 0.8571 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
A 32 | 0 | 0 | 0.1429 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
A 41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.75 | 0 | 0 |
A 42 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 0 |
A 51 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.2481 | 0 |
A 52 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.7519 | 0 |
A 61 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5571 |
A 62 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3202 |
A 63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1226 |
1.7 Matrix of paired comparisons of sub-criteria with interdependence according to the sub-criterion (internal rate of return)
C 1 | A 12 | A 42 | A 51 | A 61 | W |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A 12 | 1 | 0.17 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.5490 |
A 42 | 5.88 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0.5889 |
A 51 | 5 | 0.25 | 1 | 2 | 0.2175 |
A 61 | 4 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.1388 |
1.8 Special irregular vectors of sub-criteria with interdependence (W 4)
W 4 | A 11 | A 12 | A 13 | A 21 | A 22 | A 31 | A 32 | A 41 | A 42 | A 51 | A 52 | A 61 | A 62 | A 63 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A 11 | 0 | 0.0891 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.2150 | 0.1740 | 0 | 0.4410 | 0 | 0 |
A 12 | 0.5490 | 0 | 0 | 0.1800 | 0.2309 | 0.1307 | 0.1900 | 0.1620 | 0.1460 | 0.1190 | 0.1910 | 0.2990 | 0.0880 | |
A 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.2061 | 0.1126 | 0.3190 | 0 | 0.1500 | 0.1660 | 0.1080 | 0.1600 | 0.1160 | 0.2000 | 0.2100 |
A 21 | 0 | 0.1473 | 0.1722 | 0 | 0.1315 | 0 | 0.2980 | 0.1640 | 0 | 0.0810 | 0 | 0 | 0.1610 | 0.1530 |
A 22 | 0 | 0.1302 | 0.1424 | 0.1856 | 0 | 0 | 0.1160 | 0.1150 | 0 | 0.0660 | 0 | 0 | 0.1180 | 0.1410 |
A 31 | 0 | 0.0735 | 0.0822 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0570 | 0.0480 | 0.1150 | 0.0410 | 0 | 0.1000 | 0.0690 | 0 |
A 32 | 0 | 0.0744 | 0 | 0.1056 | 0.0874 | 0.1836 | 0 | 0.0430 | 0.0730 | 0.0510 | 0.1790 | 0 | 0 | 0.0780 |
A 41 | 0 | 0.0467 | 0.0751 | 0.0690 | 0.0670 | 0.0610 | 0.0432 | 0 | 0.0600 | 0.0330 | 0.0950 | 0 | 0 | 0.0640 |
A 42 | 0.5889 | 0.0440 | 0.0600 | 0 | 0.0830 | 0.0501 | 0.0609 | 0.0300 | 0.0490 | 0.0450 | 0 | 0.0670 | 0 | 0.0400 |
A 51 | 0.2175 | 0.0333 | 0.0431 | 0.0456 | 0.0368 | 0.0367 | 0.0315 | 0.0180 | 0.0330 | 0 | 0.0530 | 0.0460 | 0.0550 | 0.0330 |
A 52 | 0 | 0.1741 | 0.2222 | 0 | 0.1626 | 0 | 0.1671 | 0.1090 | 0 | 0.0910 | 0 | 0 | 0.0430 | 0.1590 |
A 61 | 0.1388 | 0.0263 | 0.0329 | 0 | 0 | 0.0333 | 0 | 0 | 0.0820 | 0.0170 | 0 | 0 | 0.0310 | 0 |
A 62 | 0 | 0.0260 | 0.0232 | 0.0456 | 0.0499 | 0.0854 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0250 | 0.0500 | 0.0390 | 0 | 0.0340 |
A 63 | 0 | 0.1351 | 0.1466 | 0.1244 | 0.0894 | 0 | 0.0958 | 0.1320 | 0.0450 | 0.1220 | 0.3430 | 0 | 0.0240 | 0 |
1.9 Paired comparison of alternatives interdependence (based on rate of return)
A 11 | P 1 | P 2 | P 3 | P 4 | P 5 | W |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P 1 | 1 | 2.666667 | 1 | 1.333333 | 1 | 0.242424 |
P 2 | 0.375 | 1 | 0.375 | 0.5 | 0.375 | 0.090909 |
P 3 | 1 | 2.666667 | 1 | 1.333333 | 1 | 0.242424 |
P 4 | 0.75 | 2 | 0.75 | 1 | 0.75 | 0.181818 |
P 5 | 1 | 2.666667 | 1 | 1.333333 | 1 | 0.242424 |
1.10 Special irregular vectors of sub-criteria with interdependence (W 6)
W 6 | A 11 | A 12 | A 13 | A 21 | A 22 | A 31 | A 32 | A 41 | A 42 | A 51 | A 52 | A 61 | A 62 | A 63 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P 1 | 0.2424 | 0.175 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.175 | 0.1842 | 0.1842 | 0.186 | 0.2222 | 0.2308 | 0.2813 | 0.2432 | 0.2692 | 0.2051 |
P 2 | 0.0909 | 0.15 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.2 | 0.1579 | 0.1579 | 0.2093 | 0.2963 | 0.2051 | 0.1875 | 0.1892 | 0.1538 | 0.1282 |
P 3 | 0.2424 | 0.225 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.175 | 0.1842 | 0.1842 | 0.186 | 0.2222 | 0.2308 | 0.2813 | 0.2432 | 0.3077 | 0.2308 |
P 4 | 0.1818 | 0.225 | 0.2 | 0.1111 | 0.225 | 0.2368 | 0.2368 | 0.2093 | 0.1111 | 0.1795 | 0.125 | 0.1351 | 0.1538 | 0.2308 |
P 5 | 0.2424 | 0.225 | 0.2 | 0.1389 | 0.225 | 0.2368 | 0.2368 | 0.2093 | 0.1481 | 0.1538 | 0.125 | 0.1892 | 0.1154 | 0.2051 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ghannadpour, S.F., Hoseini, A.R., Bagherpour, M. et al. Appraising the triple bottom line utility of sustainable project portfolio selection using a novel multi-criteria house of portfolio. Environ Dev Sustain 23, 3396–3437 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00724-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00724-y