Using Fuzzy MCDM Method to Exploring the Influence Degree of Project Team Effectiveness Maturity

  • YaoFeng Chang
  • Hiroaki Ishii
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 16)


The Project Team Effectiveness Maturity (PTEM) refers to the goal achievement level of a project team to achieve its anticipated results on time and within budget. This including supports the project team or organization through evaluate the key processes and implementation of team. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is Using Fuzzy MCDM method to exploring the Influence Degree of Project Team Effectiveness Maturity. The results found that there were interactive relations between all the criteria, where the dimension of “Capacity management” was the most influential dimensions; on the contrary the “Organization management” was the least dimensions. Furthermore, criteria “Authority”, “Capacity nurturing”, ”Conflict management” and “Performance management” have the higher influences among each dimension, so we suggest to consider them as the major steps to promote the capacity of project team.


PTEM (project team effectiveness maturity) Fuzzy DEMATEL (fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation laboratory) ANP (analytical network processes) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K.P., Futrell, D.: Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist 45(2), 120–133 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xiaoyi, D.C., Wells, G.W.: An exploration of project management office features and their relationship to project performance. International Journal of Project Management 22, 523–532 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vionkur-Kaplan, D.: Treatment Teams that Work (and those that don’t): An Application of Hackman’s Group Effectiveness Model to Interdisciplinary Teams in Psychiatric Hospitals. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 31(3), 308 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huang, Y.Q.: Building high performance project teams. East China University of Science and Technology Press (2008) ISBN:978-7-5628-2301-8Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang, M.H.: Researching the Project Team Capacity Maturity. China Social Sciences Press (2008) ISBN:978-7-5004-7464-7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Webber, S.S., Donahue, L.: Impact of Highly and Less Job-related Diversity on Work Group Cohesion and Performance: a Meta-analysis. Journal of management 27(2), 141–162 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gladstein, D.: Groups in context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 29, 499–517 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen, S.G., Ledford Jr., G.E., Spreitzer, G.M.: A Predictive Model of Self-Managing Work Team Effectiveness. Human Relations 49(5), 647 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tzeng, G.H., Lin, C.W., Opricovic, S.: Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 33(11), 1373–1383 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ou Yang, Y., Shieh, H., Leu, J., Tzeng, G.H.: A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. International Journal of Operations Research 5(3), 160–168 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tzeng, G.W., Chiang, C.H., Li, C.W.: Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications 32(4), 1028–1044 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jassbi, J., Mohamadnejad, F., Nasrollahzadeh, H.: A Fuzzy DEMATEL framework for modeling cause and effect relationships. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 5967–5973 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Belassi, W., Tukel, O.I.: A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management 14(3), 141–151 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ding, J.F.: Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting strategic partner: An empirical study of a container shipping company in Taiwan. International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control 5(4), 1055–1068 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hsieh, T.Y., Lu, S.T., Tzeng, G.H.: Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International Journal of Project Management 22, 573–584 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu, W., Lee, Y.: Selecting knowledge management strategies by using the analytic network process. Expert systems with Applications 32(3), 841–847 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • YaoFeng Chang
    • 1
  • Hiroaki Ishii
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Science and TechnologyKwansei Gakuin UniversitySanda-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations