AbstractChemical industry project management involves

complex decision making situations that require discerning abilities

and methods to make sound decisions. Project managers are faced
with decision environments and problems in projects that are
complex. In this work, case study is Research and Development
(R&D) project selection. R&D is an ongoing process for forward
thinking technology-based chemical industries. R&D project
selection is an important task for organizations with R&D project
management. It is a multi-criteria problem which includes both
tangible and intangible factors. The ability to make sound decisions
is very important to success of R&D projects. Multiple-criteria
decision making (MCDM) approaches are major parts of decision
theory and analysis. This paper presents all of MCDM approaches
for use in R&D project selection. It is hoped that this work will
provide a ready reference on MCDM and this will encourage the
application of the MCDM by chemical engineering management.

KeywordsChemical Engineering, R&D Project, MCDM,
Selection.
I. INTRODUCTION
HEMICAL engineering is an extended branch of
engineering and the role of management in its decision
making is irrefragable. One of the most important parts of
each chemical industry is Research and Development (R&D).
In other word, R&D is an ongoing process for forward
thinking technology-based companies. Development of




Mohsen Pirdashti is with the Department of Chemical Engineering, Shomal
University, Amol, P.O.Box 731 Iran and He is now with the Department of
Chemical Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Ayatollah Amoli Branch,
Amol, P.O.Box 678 Iran (corresponding author to provide phone: +98-121-
911-1005048; fax: +98-121-2203755; e-mail: Pirdashti@ Yahoo.com).
Arezou Ghadi was with the Department of Chemical Engineering, Islamic
Azad University, Ayatollah Amoli Branch, Amol, P.O.Box 678 Iran (e-mail:
[email protected]).
Mehrdad Mohammadi is with the Industrial Engineering Department,
University of Tarbiat-e Modares, Tehran, Iran, and He is now with the
Department of Food Science and Technology, Islamic Azad University,
Ayatollah Amoli Branch, Amol, P.O.Box 678 Iran (e-mail:
[email protected]).
Gholamreza Shojatalab is with the Department of Industrial Engineering,
Shomal University, Amol, P.O.Box 731 Iran (e-mail:
[email protected]@ Yahoo.com).
existing products is advisable to keep ahead of advances that
competitors may be making. Further, when a potential
customer approaches a firm outlining its requirements for a
product, R&D may be required to fulfill the request [1]. R&D
management has several common features with strategic
management. It actively aims at utilizing possibilities supplied
by new technologies and innovations in business operations.
Similarly to strategic management, R&D management also
has to define objectives for the R&D operations [2]. R&D
project selection is an organizational decision-making task
commonly found in organizations like government funding
agencies, universities, research institutes, and technology-
intensive companies. It is a complicated and challenging task
to organizations with the following reasons: (1) it is very
difficult to predict the future success and impacts of the
candidate projects; (2) it is a multi-stage multi-person decision
making process involving a group of decision makers (e.g.
external reviewers and panel experts). Thus, it can be very
hard to manage the decision making process, especially when
the decision makers have heterogeneous decision-making
strategies [3].Meade and Presley (2002) revealed four major
themes for R&D project selection: (1) the need to relate
selection criteria to corporate strategies. (2) The need to
consider qualitative benefits and risks of proposed projects.
(3) The need to reconcile and integrate the needs and desires
of different stakeholders. And (4) the need to consider the
multi-stage and group decision processes. Limitations of
existing R&D project selection models are: (1) Inadequate
treatment of multiple, often interrelated, evaluation criteria.
(2) An inability to handle non-monetary aspects and
inadequate treatment of interrelationships among projects. (3)
No explicit recognition and incorporation of the experience
and knowledge of R&D managers. And (4) perceptions by
R&D managers that these models are difficult to understand
and use. Most research on R&D project selection concentrates
on the private sector while little research has been done on
government-sponsored R&D projects [4]. Totally, Projects
today seek much wider business benefits than just the
reaching of immediate project goals [5]. Performance of a
project has always been an important issue in the construction
industry. There have been many past studies on project
success and factors affecting project success [6] much of the
work conducted in organizations occurs as projects [7].
Various strategy-related decision criteria are being used, to
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Selection
Model with Application to Chemical
Engineering Management Decisions

Mohsen Pirdashti, Arezou Ghadi, Mehrdad Mohammadi, and Gholamreza Shojatalab
C
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 49 2009
54


ensure the right focus for projects, and to increase probability
for business benefits. Traditional product development
decision-making literature largely focuses on phase (gate)
related decision making and neglects decision making on
changes between the gates. Continuous, nongate- specific
change decision schemes are important, as they suggest
flexibility in projects as a response to dynamic business
environment. Large numbers of proposed R&D projects may
potentially be pursued when considering this R&D
philosophy. The ability to consistently select the best projects
to fund is therefore vitally important to firms. Extensive
academic research has been conducted over the past 35 years
or so to produce methods to improve the R&D project
selection processes [1]. In the past four decades, a number of
decision models and methods (e.g. Mathematical
Programming and Optimization, Decision Analysis, Economic
Models, and Interactive Method) have been developed to help
organizations make better decisions in R&D project selection
[8]. Many project selection models have been developed over
the years taking into account projects financial aspects, risk
considerations, or ranking projects by using scoring models.
Research has shown that the most successful approach is to
select projects by considering financial, risk and project
ranking, using a so-called hybrid selection model. Despite the
fact that many models for R&D project selection have been
developed by academics, very few seem to have been tested in
companies Similarly, relatively little research has been
published on the project selection techniques that are actually
used in companies . When an organization is tasked with
deciding which research projects to proceed with, and which
projects to reject, the selection process is often inconsistent
[1]. Decision Analysis (DA) broadly refers to methods that
involve quantified evaluations of possible alternative courses
of action. The evaluations often include an assessment of
probabilities and preference elicitation using direct or indirect
utility functions. There is some debate about whether specific
techniques belong in the decision analysis domain [9].
Multiple criteria decision making is an analytic method to
evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives
based on multiple criteria. MCDM problems can be broadly
classified into two categories: multiple objective programming
and multiple criteria evaluation. MCDM approaches are major
parts of decision theory and analysis. They seek to take
explicit account of more than one criterion in supporting the
decision process [10]. MCDM methods have shown to be
popular and widely used by researchers. Essentially, each one
reflects a different approach to solving a given discrete
MCDM problem of choosing the best among several
preselected alternatives [11]. The aim of MCDM methods is
to help decision-makers learn about the problems they face, to
learn about their own and other parties' personal value
systems, to learn about organizational values and objectives,
and through exploring these in the context of the problem to
guide them in identifying a preferred course of action. In other
words, MCDM is useful in circumstances which necessitate
the consideration of different courses of action, which can not
be evaluated by the measurement of a simple, single
dimension. Hwang and Yoon published a comprehensive
survey of multiple attribute decision making methods and
applications. Two types of the problems that are common in
the project management that best fit MCDM models are
evaluation problems and design problems [12]. The evaluation
problem is concerned with the evaluation of, and possible
choice between, discretely defined alternatives. The design
problem is concerned with the identification of a preferred
alternative from a potentially infinite set of alternatives
implicitly defined by a set of constraints [13]. Zhou et al
(2006) shall classify DA methods into the three main groups
as shown in Figure 1: single objective decisionmaking
(SODM) methods, MCDM methods, and decision support
systems (DSS). They show that MCDM methods are the most
commonly used DA methods. Specifically, they show that
AHP (18%) is the most popular method, followed by MAUT
(17%), MODM (14%) and DT (14%).


Fig. 1 Classification of decision analysis methods

MCDM allows decision makers to choose or rank
alternatives on the basis of an evaluation according to several
criteria. Decisions are made based on trade-offs or
compromises among a number of criteria that are in conflict
with each other. Multiple objective decision making (MODM)
and multiple attribute decision making (MADM) are the two
main branches of MCDM. MODM methods are multiple
objective mathematical programming models in which a set of
conflicting objectives is optimized and subjected to a set of
mathematically defined constraints. The purpose is to choose
the best among all the alternatives. A special case of
MODM is the multiple objective linear programming (MOLP)
where the objective functions and constraints are linear
functions. MADM refers to making preference decisions by
evaluating and prioritizing all the alternatives that are usually
characterized by multiple conflicting attributes. Fig. 1 shows
the more popular MADM methods in E&E studies. Multiple
attribute utility theory (MAUT) allows decision makers to
consider their preferences in the form of multiple attribute
utility functions. A special case of MAUT is multiple attribute
value theory (MAVT) where there is no uncertainty in the
consequences of the alternatives. The analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) is a methodology consisting of structuring,
measurement and synthesis, which can help decision makers
to cope with complex situations. The elimination and choice
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 49 2009
55


translating reality methods, including ELECTRE I, II, III and
IV methods, are a family of outranking methods. The
preference ranking organization methods for enrichment
evaluation (PROMETHEE) are also a class of outranking
methods. Other multiple attribute decision making (OMADM)
methods such as conjunctive and disjunctive methods,
TOPSIS are also popular in practice [14]. However, they have
not been as widely adopted in E&E modeling and as such are
lumped together as OMADM. According to Zhou et al (2006)
classified DA methods and their explanation most commonly
method used, in this paper we described these different
methods wildly, as fallows.
A. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the most
popular and powerful methods for group decision making
used in project selection and AHP is a multi-criteria decision-
making approach that simplifies complex, ill-structured
problems by arranging the decision factors in a hierarchical
structure. The AHP is a theory of measurement for dealing
with quantifiable and intangible criteria that has been applied
to numerous areas, such as decision theory and conflict
resolution [15]. Project evaluation is usually a team effort, and
the AHP is one available method for forming a systematic
framework for group interaction and group decision-making
[16]. Dyer and Forman [17] describe the advantages of AHP
in a group setting as follows: (1) both tangibles and
intangibles, individual values and shared values can be
included in an AHP-based group decision process; (2) the
discussion in a group can be focused on objectives rather than
alternatives; (3) the discussion can be structured so that every
factor relevant to the discussion is considered in turn; and (4)
in a structured analysis, the discussion continues until all
relevant information from each individual member in a group
has been considered and a consensus choice of the decision
alternative is achieved. A detailed discussion on conducting
AHP-based group decision-making sessions including
suggestions for assembling the group, constructing the
hierarchy, getting the group to agree, inequalities of power,
concealed or distorted preferences, and implementing the
results can be found in [18,19] . For problems with using AHP
in group decisionmaking, see [20]. AHP method require the
pre-selection of a countable number of alternatives and the use
of a countable number of quantifiable (conflicting and
noncommensurable) performance attributes (criteria). The
attributes (criteria) may indicate costs and benefits to a DM. A
larger outcome always means greater preference for a benefit
or less preference for a cost criterion. After inter- and intra-
comparison of the alternatives with respect to a given set of
performance attributes (criteria), implicit/explicit trade-offs
are established and used to rank the alternatives [21]. The
AHP method is selected for its specificity, which offers a
certain freedom to a DM to express his preferences for
particular attributes (criteria) by using the original AHP
measurement scale. The AHP method does not require such
explicit quantification of attributes (criteria), but it needs
specific hierarchical structuring of the MCDM problem. The
method itself then generates the weights of the criteria by
using the AHP measurement scale according to a specified
procedure. Under such circumstances, a comparison of the
results from such different methods applied to the same
problem appears to be very interesting and challenging from
both academic and practical perspectives. In the next sub-
sections, the basic structures of three MCDM methods and the
procedures for assigning weight to the attributes (criteria) are
described [11].
Saaty [22, 23 and 24] developed the following steps for
applying AHP:
1. Define the problem and determine its goal,
2. Structure the hierarchy with the decision-makers
objective at the top with the intermediate levels capturing
criteria on which subsequent levels depend and the bottom
level containing the alternatives, and
3. Construct a set of n n pair-wise comparison matrices
for each of the lower levels with one matrix for each element
in the level immediately above. The pairwise comparisons are
made using the relative measurement scale in Table I [25, 26
and 27]. The pair-wise comparisons capture a decision
makers perception of which element dominates the other.

TABLE I
PAIR-WISE COMPARISON SCALE FOR AHP PREFERENCE
Numerical rating Verbal judgments of preferences
9 Extremely preferred
8 Very strongly to extremely
7 Very strongly preferred
6 Strongly to Very strongly
5 Strongly preferred
4 Moderately to strongly
3 Moderately preferred
2 Equally to moderately
1 Equally preferred

4. There are n (n-1)/2 judgments required to develop the set
of matrices in step 3. Reciprocals are automatically assigned
in each pair-wise comparison.
5. The hierarchy synthesis function is used to weight the
eigenvectors by the weights of the criteria and the sum is
taken over all weighted eigenvector entries corresponding to
those in the next lower level of the hierarchy.
6. After all the pair-wise comparisons are completed, the
consistency of the comparisons is assessed by using the
eigenvalue, , to calculate a consistency index, CI:

CI = (-n)/ (n-1) (1)
where n is the matrix size. Judgment consistency can be
checked by taking the consistency ratio (CR) of CI with the
appropriate value in Table II. Saaty [1980] suggests that the
CR is acceptable if it does not exceed 0.10. If the CR is
greater than 0.10, the judgment matrix should be considered
inconsistent. To obtain a consistent matrix, the judgments
should be reviewed and repeated.


7. Steps 3-6 are performed for all levels in the hierarchy [13].
1.2. Group AHP Method
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 49 2009
56


While AHP can be used to capture the priorities of individual
decision participants, it is necessary to combine these
individual assessments into a consensus. To aggregate
individual AHP judgments into a group decision, there are
two perspectives.
1. 2.1. Aggregation of Individual Judgment
In this view, a group decision matrix is constructed from the
unique matrix of each decision participant. An element of this
matrix ( )
G
ij
a is calculated using a geometric average of the
elements from each unique matrix,

1
1 1
( ) ( )
K
K K
n n
G
ij ijk ijk
K K
a a a

= =

= =




, , 1,..., i j m = , 1,..., K n = (2)
Where
k
and
ijk
a are the importance and efficiency of the
K decision and are elements of the K matrix, respectively
[28].
1. 2.2. Aggregation of Individual Priorities (AIP):
In this approach, the order of the decision weights for each
decision alternative for the K decision ( )
k
i
W , K=1.n,
where, n is the number of decision makers, is calculated and a
group decision weight ( )
G
i
W for the alternative is
constructed:
( )
G G
i
W W =
1
; ( )
K
n
G K
i i
K
W w

=
=

1,..., i m = (3)
Where
k
indicates amount and importance of effectiveness
of K decision and
G
W matrix indicate aggregation weight of
a single judgment in respect to each alternative.
In both approaches, each individual judgment affects the final
judgment
k
. So that:

1
1
n
k
K

=
=

(4)
After aggregating the individual judgments, matrices with the
same dimensions as the unique individual matrices are
constructed in which the local and final weights as well as the
inconsistency of each matrix and total inconsistency are
calculated with the same basic AHP method [28].

B. Multiple Attribute Utility (value) Theory(MAU(V)T)
MAUT, developed by keeney and Raiffa, attempts to
maximize a decision maker's utility or value ( preference)
which is represented by a function that maps an object
measured on an absolute scale into the decision maker's utility
or value relation. It is based on the following fundamental
axiom: any decision maker attempts unconsciously to
maximize a real valued function U=U(
n
g g g ,..., ,
2 1
) ,
aggregating the criteria
n
g g g ,..., ,
2 1
, that is , all the
different points of view which are taken into account. The role
of the researcher is to try to estimate that function by asking
the decision maker some well-chosen questions. Utility
independence is one of central concepts in MAUT and various
utility- independence conditions imply specific forms of utility
functions. However, only the additive and multiplicative
forms are generally used in practice. The additive utility
function can be represented as:
) ( ... ) ( ) ,..., (
1 1 1 1 m m m m
x u k x u k x x u + + = (5)

where ) ,..., (
1 m
x x u is on a scale from 0 to 1, the component
utility function ) (
i i
x u are on a scale from 0 to 1 and the
scaling constants
i
k are positive and sum to one. The
multiplicative Form is given as :

1+k ) ,..., (
1 m
x x u =

=
m
i 1
[1+k
i
k ) (
i i
x u ] (6)
where ) ,..., (
1 m
x x u is on a scale from 0 to 1, the component
utility function ) (
i i
x u are on a scale from 0 to 1. However,
the scaling constant
i
k may be greater or less than one and the
constant k is chosen to satisfy the following equation:

1+k=

=
m
i 1
[1+k
i
k ] (7)
Procedure in this method as fallows;
step1. Identify relevant characteristic (attributes)
Step2. Assign quantifiable variables to each of the attributes
and specify their restrictions.
Step3. Select and construct utility functions for the individual
attributes.
Step4. Synthesize the individual utility functions into a single
additive or multiplicative utility function.
Step 5. Evaluate the alternatives using the function obtained in
the fourth step.
The primary advantage of MAUT is that the problem becomes
a single objective problem once the utility function has been
assessed correctly, thus ensuring achievement of the best-
compromise solution [29].

C. The Elimination and Choice Translating reality
(ELECTRE)
This method is capable of handling discrete criteria of both
quantitative and qualitative in nature and provides complete
ordering of the alternatives. The problem is to be so
formulated that it chooses alternatives that are preferred over
most of the criteria and that do not cause an unacceptable level
of discontent for any of the criteria. The concordance,
discordance indices and threshold values are used in this
technique. Based on these indices, graphs for strong and weak
relationships are developed. These graphs are used in an
iterative procedure to obtain the ranking of alternatives. This
TABLE II
AVERAGE RANDOM CONSISTENCY
Size of
Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Random
Consistency
0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 49 2009
57


index is defined in the range (01), provides a judgment on
degree of credibility of each outranking relation and
represents a test to verify the performance of each alternative.
The index of global concordance
ik
C represents the amount of
evidence to support the concordance among all criteria, under
the hypothesis that
i
A outranks
K
A . It is defined as follows.


= =
=
m
j
m
j
j K i j j ik
W A A c W C
1 1
) ( (8)

where
j
W is the weight associated with
th
j criteria. Finally,
the ELECTRE method yields a whole system of binary
outranking relations between the alternatives. Because the
system is not necessarily complete, the ELECTRE method is
sometimes unable to identify the preferred alternative. It only
produces a core of leading alternatives. This method has a
clearer view of alternatives by eliminating less favorable ones,
especially convenient while encountering a few criteria with a
large number of alternatives in a decision making problem
[10].
D. Preference Ranking organization Method for
Enrichment Evaluation (POMETHEE)
This method uses the outranking principle to rank the
alternatives, combined with the ease of use and decreased
complexity. It performs a pair-wise comparison of alternatives
in order to rank them with respect to a number of criteria.
Brans et al.(1986) have offered six generalized criteria
functions for reference namely, usual criterion, quasi criterion,
criterion with linear preference, level criterion, criterion with
linear preference and indifference area, and Gaussian
criterion. The method uses preference function
j
p (a, b)
which is a function of the difference
j
d between two
alternatives for any criterion j, i. e. ) , ( ) , ( j b f j a f d
j
=
where f(a, j) and f(b, j) are values of two alternatives a and b
for criterion j. The indifference and preference thresholds q
and p are also defined depending upon the type of criterion
function. Two alternatives are indifferent for criterion j as
long as
j
d does not exceed the indifference threshold q. If
j
d becomes greater than p, there is a strict preference.
Multi-criteria preference index, ) , ( b a weighted average of
the preference functions
j
p (a, b) for all the criteria is defined
as :

=
=
=
J
j
j
J
j
j j
w
b a p w
b a
1
1
) , (
) , ( (9)

=
+
A
b a a ) , ( ) ( (10)

A
a b a ) , ( ) ( (11)

) ( ) ( ) ( a a a
+
= (12)

where
j
W is the weight assigned to the criterion j; ) (a
+
is
the outranking index of a in the alternative set A; ) (a

is
the outranked index of a in the alternative set A; ) (a is the
net ranking of a in the alternative set A. The value having
maximum ) (a is considered as the best.
a outranks b if ) (a > ) (b , a is indifferent to b if
) (a = ) (b [10].
E. The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to
Ideal Solutions (TOPSIS)
This method is developed by Huang and Yoon (1995) as
an alternative to ELE CTRE. The basic concept of this method
is that the selected alternative should have the shortest
distance from the negative ideal solution in geometrical sense.
The method assumes that each attribute has a monotonically
increasing or decreasing utility. This makes it easy to locate
the ideal and negative ideal solutions. Thus, the preference
order of alternatives is yielded through comparing the
Euclidean distances. A decision matrix of M alternatives and
N criteria is formulated firstly. The normalized decision
matrix and construction of the weighted decision matrix is
carried out. This is followed by the ideal and negative-ideal
solutions. For benefit criteria the decision maker wants to
have maximum value among the alternatives and for cost
criteria he wants minimum values amongst alternatives. This
is followed by separation measure and calculating relative
closeness to the ideal solution. The best alternative is one
which has the shortest distance to the ideal solution and
longest distance to negative ideal solution [10].

II. CONCLUSION
Chemical engineers require discerning abilities and
methods to make sound decisions. R&D is a driving force of a
chemical industry and one of the important strategies for a
chemical industry is to make clear the way to execute R&D,
the rule to select R&D projects and set priority levels to
projects, etc. It depends on the knowledge of an administrator
and the thinking of the executive in most cases. Despite the
fact that many models for R&D project selection have been
developed by academics, very few seem to have been tested in
companies Similarly, relatively little research has been
published on the project selection techniques that are actually
used in companies . MCDM approaches seem major parts of
decision theory and analysis. In this paper we have described
several different methods of MCDM as a most commonly
method that used for solving multi criteria decision problems
in R&D project selection in chemical industry. It is hoped that
this work will provide a ready reference on MCDM and this
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 49 2009
58


will encourage the application of the MCDM by chemical
engineering project management.
REFERENCES
[1] C.P.Lawson, P.J. Longhurst, P.C. Ivey, The application of a new
research and development project selection model in SMEs,
technovoation, 2006, 26:pp.242-250.
[2] Ch.Carlsson, R. Fulle, M. Heikkila, P.Majlender, A fuzzy approach to
R&D project portfolio selection, International Journal of Approximate
Reasoning, 2007, 44: pp.93105.
[3] M. Tavana, D.T. Kennedy, and P.Joglekar, A group decision support
framework for consensus ranking of technical manager candidates,
Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 1996, 24,
pp.523538.
[4] Ch-Ch. Huanga, P.Chub, Y.Chiang,A fuzzy AHP application in
government-sponsored R&D project selection, Omega 2008, 36:
pp.1038 1052.
[5] W. A. Steffens, M.B. Martinsuo, K. Artto, Change decisions in product
development projects, International Journal of Project
Management,2007, 25 : pp.702713.
[6] L. S. Pheng, Q. T. Chuan, Environmental factors and work performance
of project managers in the construction industry, International Journal
of Project Management,2006, 24: pp. 2437.
[7] K. C. Desouzaa, J. R. Evaristo, Project management offices: A case of
knowledge-based archetypes, International Journal of Information
Management, 2006, 26: pp.414423.
[8] L.M. Meade, A.Presley , R&D project selection using the analytic
network process, Transactions on Engineering Management,2002,
49(1): pp.59-66
[9] D.J.Powera, R. Sharda, Model-driven decision support systems:
Concepts and research directions, 2005.
[10] S.D. Pohekar, Ramachandran,Application of multi-criteria decision
making to sustainable energy planning, Renewable and Sustainable
Enegy Reviews,2004, 8: pp.365-381.
[11] M. Janic, A.Reggiani,An Application of the Multiple Criteria Decision
Making (MCDM) Analysis to the Selection of a New Hub Airport,
EJTIR,2002, 2(2): pp. 113 141.
[12] E.R. Steuer, p. Na, Multiple criteria decision making combined with
finance:Acategorized bibliographic study, European journal of
Operational Research,2003, 150: pp.496-515.
[13] Al.K, M. S. Al. Harbi,Application of the AHP in project management,
International Journal of Project Management,2001, 19 : pp.19-27.
[14] P. A. Zhou, B.W. Poh, Decision analysis in energy and environmental
modeling: An update," Energy ,2006,31: pp.26042622.
[15] O. S. Vaidya, S. Kumar, Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of
applications, European journal of operational research,2006, pp.169, 1-
29.
[16] Sh.a Imoto, Y.b. Yabuuchi, J. Watada, Fuzzy regression model of R&D
project evaluation, Applied Soft Computing ,2008,8: pp.12661273.
[17] J. S. Dyer,A clarification of Remarks on the analytic hierarchy
process, Management science,1990, 36, pp. 274-275.
[18] T. L. Saaty,Axiomatic foundations of the analytic hierarchy process,
Management science,1983, 32, pp.841-855.
[19] B. L., Golden, E. A. Wasil, D.E. Levy,Application of analytical
hierarchy process: a categorized, annotated bibliography, In:
Golden,B.L., Wasil,E.A., Harker, P.T.(Eds.), The analytic hierarchy
process. Applications and studies, 1989, (pp.37-58). Berlin: Springer.
[20] T. Y. Hsieh, Sh.T. Lu, G.H., Tzeng, Fuzzy MCDM approach for
planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings,
International Journal of Project Management,2004, 22:pp. 573584.
[21] Q.Tian, J.Ma, J.Liang, R.C.W. Kwok, O. Liu, An organizational
decision support system for effective R&D project selection, Decision
Support systems,2004,39: pp.403-413.
[22] T. L. Saaty, How to make a decision: the analytical hierarchy process,
European journal of operational research. North-Holland, 1990, 48,
pp.9-26.
[23] T. L. Saaty, Highlights and critical points in theory and application of
the Analytical Hierarchy process, European journal of operational
research,1994, 74, pp.426-447.
[24] T. L. Saaty, How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process,
Interfaces,1994, 24, pp.19-43.
[25] T. L. Saaty, Modeling unstructured decision problems: a theory of
analytical hierarchies, Proceedings of the first international conference
on mathematical modeling, 1977, pp. 69-77.
[26] T. L. Saaty, The analytical hierarchy process, Mc Graw-Hill: New
York,1980.
[27] P.Kumar, Integrated project evaluation and selection using multiple-
attribute decision-making technique, International Journal of
Production Economics,2006, 103: pp.90103.
[28] Z. Xu, On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex
judgment matrix in AHP, European journal of operational
research,2000,. 126, pp.683-687.
[29] R.L. Keeny, H.Raiffa,Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences
and value tradeoffs, New York: Wiley,1976.



Mohsen Pirdashti has received his undergraduate and graduate degrees in
Chemical Engineering from Mohaghegh Ardebili University and Razi
University in Iran. He is currently lectures at the Shomal University and the
Azad University in Amol. He teaches Management & Marketing, Heat
Processes and Unit Operation at Food Technology Department and Mass
Transfer and Engineering Mathematics at Chemical Engineering Department
and Fluid Flow at Civil Engineering Department. He has been worked at
Kimia Garb Gostar Corporation on a joint venture with Vogel Busch
(Austria). Mohsen is responsible for the design and construction of a pilot
research and development plant. Mohsen has been a lecturer at the National
Iranian Oil Company and his primary research interests include multi-criteria
decision making and group decision support systems with applications in
chemical engineering, environment engineering, and food engineering.
Mohsen has presented his research in numerous conferences worldwide and
has published several scientific papers in Chemical Engineering and
Management.


World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 49 2009
59