See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320747790

Evaluation of Project Management Knowledge Areas using Grey Incidence

model and AHP

Conference Paper · August 2017

DOI: 10.1109/GSIS.2017.8077684

CITATIONS READS

16 1,015

2 authors:

Saad Javed Sifeng Liu

Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics
32 PUBLICATIONS   282 CITATIONS    91 PUBLICATIONS   411 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Scholars of Grey System Theory @ ResearchGate View project

Grey Absolute Decision Analysis (GADA) - MCDM method View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saad Javed on 04 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evaluation of Project Management Knowledge Areas
using Grey Incidence Model and AHP

Saad Ahmed Javed Sifeng Liu

College of Economics and Management, Institute for Grey System Studies,
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Nanjing, People’s Republic of China Nanjing, People’s Republic of China
saad.ahmed.javed@live.com; saad@nuaa.edu.cn sfliu@nuaa.edu.cn

(PMKAs) in manufacturing and service industries by

LONG ABSTRACT establishing relationships between the ten PMKAs and, then,
Project success (and failure) leads to the success (and prioritizing them, using the absolute degree grey incidence
failures) of business/organizational strategies thus projects are analysis (ADGIA) model and analytic hierarchy process (AHP).
becoming integral part of organizations operating in today’s In this way, the study is pioneer in its evaluation of ten PMKAs.
competitive environment (see, Serra, 2017; PMI, 2013). Today, Data was collected, from thirty-two project management-
project management is being applied in diverse range of related professionals, in Lahore, Pakistan. Since the sample
professions and industries that includes both manufacturing size was small so application of the grey system theory was
and service sectors (Kerzner, 2009). Moreover, a competent considered appropriate because, unlike statistical methods, the
and knowledgeable project manager is vital to project success grey systems concepts (including GIA) work fine with small
(Hwang & Ng, 2013; PMI, 2013) and in a world where project data samples as well. Absolute degree of grey incidence was
failure rate is too high to ignore (Serra, 2017) understanding calculated using the method proposed in Liu et al. (2016). To
the mind and preferences of this extremely important solve the problem using AHP, the simplest way adopted by
individual becomes necessity. Project Management Institute Taha (2014) was followed.
(USA) distributes the project management knowledge into ten
interlinked areas (PMI, 2013). The completeness or Literature suggests that complexity, risk, uncertainty and
incompleteness of the number of these project management unpredictability are key attributes associated with a project,
knowledge areas (PMKAs) can be debatable nevertheless the project environment and project management process. These
importance of these knowledge areas for project success is are the attributes that distinguish a temporary organizational
established across the board. The ten PMKAs are setup (project) from the permanent organizational setups
(companies and firms) thus the application of grey system
i. Project Integration Management (PIM) theory in project management discipline can be considered an
ii. Project Scope Management (PSM) appropriate initiative with huge scope of applicability within
iii. Project Time Management (PTM) this discipline. The results reveal that Project Quality
iv. Project Cost Management (PCoM) Management, the most important knowledge area, is most
v. Project Quality Management (PQM) strongly related to Project Communication Management, and
vi. Project Human Resource Management (PHRM) least strongly related to Project Integration Management. In
vii. Project Communications Management (PCmM) manufacturing industry, Quality, Time and Scope related
viii. Project Risk Management (PRM) knowledge areas turned out to be the most important PMKAs
ix. Project Procurement Management (PPM) and in the service sector, the knowledge areas associated with
x. Project Stakeholder Management (PSHM) Cost, Quality and Communication are considered most
important.
The current study views a project as a grey system and
intends to evaluate the project management knowledge areas

978-1-5090-6668-1/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 120 GSIS 2017

 Technological and Economic Development of Economy
ISSN: 2029-4913 / eISSN: 2029-4921
2020 Volume 26 Issue 3: 621–641
https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.11890

DISTINGUISHING COEFFICIENT DRIVEN SENSITIVITY

ANALYSIS OF GRA MODEL FOR INTELLIGENT DECISIONS:
APPLICATION IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Amin MAHMOUDI 1, Saad Ahmed JAVED 2, 3*,

Sifeng LIU 4, Xiaopeng DENG 5

1, 5Department
of Construction and Real Estate, School of Civil Engineering,
Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, P.R. China
2School of Business, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, P.R. China
3College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,

Nanjing, P.R. China

4Institute for Grey Systems Studies, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,

Nanjing, P.R. China

Received 01 September 2019; accepted 20 October 2019

Abstract. The Distinguishing Coefficient (ξ) is an important parameter of Grey Relational Analysis
(GRA), a flagship multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) model of Grey System Theory, an intel-
ligent and multifaceted field developed by Chinese scientists in 1980s. However, the scholars widely
assume ξ = 0.5. The current study questions this practice. Also, some scholars have argued that the
variation in ξ doesn’t influence the ranking of the factors through GRA. On contrary, the study dem-
onstrates, the variation in ξ can influence the ranking. This has been shown through a case involving
primary data concerning the perceived relative importance of Project Management Knowledge Ar-
eas (PMKAs). This study is significant for the analysts of uncertain systems, represented by grey or
fuzzy systems, who intend to use GRA for intelligent multi-criteria decision making. It encourages
ξ – driven sensitivity analysis of GRA model before interpreting the results. The study reveals, by
tailoring the value of ξ a point can be achieved where the ranking obtained through GRA can be
made most comparable to the other MCDM methods. For comparative analysis of the GRA based
results the study deployed three other MCDM techniques; Analytic Hierarchy Process, Best Worst
Method and Simple Additive Weighting.

Keywords: project management, knowledge areas, Grey Relational Analysis GRA, Simple Additive
Weighing SAW, Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP, Best Worst Method BWM.

JEL Classification: C1, C8, L0, M0.

*Corresponding author. E-mail: saad.ahmed.javed@live.com

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by VGTU Press

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author
and source are credited.
622 S. A. Javed et al. Distinguishing coefficient driven sensitivity analysis of GRA model for intelligent ...

Introduction
Projects are collective and purposeful endeavors driven by advancing collective comprehen-
sions and interpretations of means and ends (Zavadskas et  al., 2008). Project success (or
failure) contribute to the success (or failure) of corporate strategies that’s why projects are
increasingly becoming an integral unit of corporations functioning in the competitive envi-
ronments of today (Serra, 2017; Project Management Institute, 2013). With ever-increasing
competition and uncertainties, more and more organizations are handling organizational
issues on project management basis to achieve objectives at fast pace (Bakker, 2010; Winter
et  al., 2006). Nowadays, project management has seen its application in various kinds of
organizations and sectors that encompasses both services and manufacturing industries (Ker-
zner, 2017, p. 2). In the past, project management was viewed as a threat to established lines
of authority and thus to traditional way of managing organizational tasks, however today it
is considered a competitive weapon to provide superior quality and services to the clients
(Kerzner, 2014). Furthermore, knowledgeable and competent project managers are usually
considered important to successes of projects (Hwang & Ng, 2013; Project Management
Institute, 2017) whose ability to balance the project constraints (time, cost, scope, quality,
risk, etc.) in achieving project deliverables/objectives is well known in literature (Mahmoudi
& Feylizadeh, 2018). Thus, in a world where rates of project failures are too high to overlook
(Serra, 2017) apprehending the mindset and priorities of these extremely important individu-
als becomes essential (Javed & Liu, 2017).
Risks, uncertainties, complexities and unpredictability are important characteristics sur-
rounding projects, project environments and project management processes (Floricel et al.,
2016; Garel, 2013; He et al., 2015; Kaganer et al., 2013; Oun et al., 2016; Salet et al., 2013; Van-
houcke, 2013). These characteristics differentiate a temporary organizational system (project)
from the permanent organizational systems (organizations) thus the application of an uncer-
tainty theory like Grey System Theory in project management and related problems can be
argued to be an apt attempt with vast scope of applications within project management field
as the theory is well known for its ability to handle poorly understood uncertain systems
(Javed & Liu, 2017, 2019). If one closely observes the life cycle of a project, it can be easily
observed that with the conclusion of each phase of project life cycle, new uncertain condi-
tions and complexities arise that if not managed successfully can unfavourably influence
project performance. Thus, a project is a grey system in its own right (Javed & Liu, 2017), and
existence of project risk management as one of the main areas of project management phi-
losophy further strengthens this view. Therefore, the current study considers “project” a grey
system because of uncertainties associated with projects and project management processes,
and thus argues the application of Grey System Theory on the project/project management
problems an appropriate initiative.
Project Management Institute (PMI) is an important organization of project management
professionals in the United States and abroad. PMI classifies the project management knowl-
edge into 10 interwoven areas (Project Management Institute, 2013). The all-inclusiveness of
the number of the project management knowledge areas (PMKAs) can be debated yet their
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2020, 26(3): 621–641 623

significance for the success of projects is well-known (Javed & Liu, 2017). Several scholars
have studied PMKAs in different industries and different perspectives/contexts. For instance,
Crawford and Pollack (2007) studied nine PMKAs in their cross sectional study involving dif-
ferent countries, industries and application areas. Hwang and Ng (2013) summarized several
PMKAs in their study involving green construction. Dumrak et al. (2017) investigated the
relationship between PMKAs and sustainable outcomes in reproductive health development
projects in Thailand. Oun et al. (2016) associated PMKAs to project success factors. Rocha
et al. (2015) investigated PMKAs according to their relevance to project success in Portu-
guese construction sector. Nguyen et al. (2016) investigated PMKAs in academic/educational
context. Eastham et al. (2014) ranked nine PMKAs in their study on PLM software selection
model. Mesquida and Mas (2014) discussed ten PMKAs in their study on software develop-
ment sector. Zwikael (2009) studied the relative importance of nine PMKAs during project
planning. Review of past studies suggests that prioritization of PMKAs is an important area
of research in project management research, and this information’s usefulness for project
managers to effectively utilize the available resources (Zwikael, 2009) further demonstrates
the importance of this topic. However, why such an important topic is overlooked by the PM-
BOK® Guide further exposes the already evident weak theoretical foundation of the project
management discipline (Garel, 2013; Padalkar & Gopinath, 2016).
As it is difficult to get rid of uncertainties in most of our daily activities, the scholars
have proposed various approaches to identify, control, and manage such uncertainties (Liao
et al., 2015). Grey System Theory is one of the promising approaches to handle uncertainty in
multi-attribute and multi-objective decision-making that has seen its application in various
fields including project management (Javed, 2019). The distinguishing coefficient (ξ) is an
important parameter of Deng’s GRA model however, its significance is usually overlooked
by the scholars. Literature is full of studies where the value of ξ is assumed to be 0.5 without
justifying its deployment. In the words of Javed et al. (2018b), “usually, the scholars suppose
the value of ξ to be 0.5 even though the rationale behind this supposition is not yet univer-
sally established”. Even the definition of Deng’s GRA model states ξ ∈ (0, 1). Thus, arguing
ξ to be more of a dynamic parameter rather than a static parameter is established from its
definition. Further, adding insult to the injury some scholars have argued that the variation
in ξ doesn’t varies the final order of the factors/alternatives, prioritized through GRA model.
For instance, Sallehuddin et al. (2008) claimed, “based on mathematic proof, the value change
of ξ will only change the magnitude of the relational coefficient, but it will not change the
rank of the grey relational grade”. They did not present any proof to justify this claim except
one supporting reference, Jiang et al. (2002). Nevertheless, Jiang et al. (2002) simply stated, “It
has been proved that the value will change the magnitude of the [grey] relational coefficients,
while it will not change the ranking result”. The proof is equally missing from their study.
On the other hand, Song and Shepperd (2011) stated that the variation in ξ will change the
absolute value of grey relational coefficients (GRCs) without affecting their ranking order
whereas slight variation in the ranking order of grey relational grades (GRGs) is equally
possible. In the current study a comprehensive overview of the actual situation would be
demonstrated through the real-world case while comparatively analyzing the results with
624 S. A. Javed et al. Distinguishing coefficient driven sensitivity analysis of GRA model for intelligent ...

that of three other MCDM methods; Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Best Worst Method
(BWM) and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW). While seconding Javed and Liu (2017), the
current study considers “project” a grey system and aims to analyze the PMKAs in service
and manufacturing sectors by recognizing the grey relations between the ten PMKAs and,
then, ranking them, through the GRA and three other MCDM methods. Considering the
fact that one the most pressing challenges nowadays is the selection and application of ap-
propriate methods to guide researchers (Drouin et al., 2016) the current study deploys a set
of traditional and emerging MCDM methods together to solve the problem. This makes the
current study pioneer in its methodology to evaluate the ten PMKAs. Using these methods,
the study strives to find out answers to the following questions.
– Which PMKA is perceived to be most and least significant for project success?
– How the results of GRA model differ when compared with that of other methods?
– How manufacturing and service industries’ rankings differ and what insights do they
shed on the difference of opinions among the project management professionals from
the two industries?
– How the variations in ξ influence these prioritizations?
– What insight can be drawn from the variation in the ranking order, if any?
– At what value of ξ, the ranks obtained through the GRA model are most comparable
to other MCDM methods?
The study is organized as follows. After introduction, a brief outline of the literature
has been presented to make the readers familiar with the important themes of the current
study. This includes defining Project Management Knowledge Areas (PMKAs) and the four
MCDM methods. In the third part, research methodology has been discussed. The fourth
part presents results and discussion where GRA model has been executed on various values
of ξ. Comparative analyses with other MCDM methods have also been presented. In the fifth
and last part, the study has been concluded with some recommendations for both project
management professionals and grey systems analysts.

1. Overview of important themes

1.1. Grey Relational Analysis
Decision making is the primary task of all humans and the output of our all daily activities
depends on the soundness of our decisions however decision making is not always easy
especially when the problem and associated information contain uncertainty, vagueness or
complexity (Liao et  al., 2017, 2018). When decision making involves uncertainty, the ap-
proaches like fuzzy logic and grey system theory becomes natural choice (Mahmoudi et al.,
2019a; Liao & Xu, 2017; Liu et al., 2017). Like fuzzy theory, grey system theory (GST) is a fea-
sible mathematical approach for systems analysis described by imperfect information (Javed
et al., 2019c). Grey Relational Analysis (GRA), also called Grey Correlation Analysis or Grey
Incidence Analysis, is one of the core parts of Grey System Theory (Zhang et al., 2012). The
theory has been recognized to be superior to comparable methodologies in the mathemati-
cal analysis of systems with uncertain information (Haeri & Rezaei, 2019). GRA models are
one of the new alternatives to the conventional statistical methods to analyze systems (Liu
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2020, 26(3): 621–641 625

et al., 2017). The earliest GRA model was introduced by Professor Deng Julong in 1982 and
it is still the most influential one (Liu et al., 2017; Li et al., 2011). The underline concept of
GRA is to determine the extent of proximity between the data sequences by using the degree
of similarity of geometric curves of the data sequences (Quartey-Papafio et  al., 2019; Liu
et al., 2017). GRA can be executed to expound a grey system whose physical prototype and
operating mechanism are unclear (Zhang et al., 2012). GRA method has been adopted for
probabilistic linguistic environment (Liang et al., 2018) and has been extended for predicting
the experts’ weights as well (Liang et al., 2019). Further, the deployment of the GRA model
to handle MCDM problems is also well-established (Kuo et al., 2008). The foundation of the
GRA model lies on Grey Relational Grade (GRG). If X0 = (x0(1), x0(2), …, x0(n)) and Xi =
(xi(1), xi(2), …, xi(n)) are two data sequences (reference sequence and alternative sequence,
respectively) then the Deng’s GRG is given by (Deng, 1989; Javed et al., 2018a)
n

∑ k =1γ ( x0 ( k ) , xi ( k ) ) * wk ,
γ 0i =γ( X0 , Xi ) =

( )
where γ x0 ( k ) , xi ( k ) is the Grey Relational Coefficient (GRC) given by,
mini mink x0 ( k ) − xi ( k ) + ξ maxi max k x0 ( k ) − xi ( k )
( )
γ x 0 ( k ) , xi ( k ) =
x0 ( k ) − xi ( k ) + ξ maxi max k x0 ( k ) − xi ( k )
.

The weight wk can be replaced by 1 when all factors are equally weighted. In the GRC
n
formula, ξ∈ (0, 1) is the distinguishing coefficient of the Deng’s GRA model that adjusts the
range of the comparative environment, and controls the relative differences among the grey
relational coefficients associated with a problem (Wu et al., 2013). It can be varied depending
on the uncertainty in the data (Javed, 2019). If the value of ξ is smaller, the distinguishability
between the data sequences is larger and if the value of ξ is larger, the distinguishability is
smaller (Abhang & Hameedullah, 2012). The distinguishing coefficient is very interesting
parameter of the model. Despite its ability to influence the grey relational ordering (the final
ranking of the factors/alternatives), which will be confirmed in the succeeding sections of the
current paper, the scholars usually presume its value to be 0.5 even though the logic behind
this supposition is not recognized (Javed et al., 2018b) in spite of the fact that the effect of
variation in ξ on the variation in grey relational grade is well known (Wu & Chen, 2005).

1.2. Simple Additive Weighting method

Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) approach is one of the most popular and simplest ap-
proaches of multi-criteria decision making. It has been reported that SAW was developed
by MacCrimon (MacCrimmon, 1968), a consultant of RAND Corporation (Zavadskas et al.,
2010). It is also called weighted sum method, weighted linear combination or scoring meth-
ods (Afshari et al., 2010; Chou et al., 2008). The SAW approach consists of two fundamental
stages; first, scale/normalize the measures of all criteria (attributes) to make them comparable
and then sum up the measures of all criteria for each alternative (Chou et al., 2008). The
detailed steps to solve problems through SAW method can be found in Afshari et al. (2010).
626 S. A. Javed et al. Distinguishing coefficient driven sensitivity analysis of GRA model for intelligent ...

1.3. Analytic Hierarchy Process

The methodology of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was put forwarded by T. L. Saaty in
1970s (Saaty, 1986). AHP involves computing through pairwise comparisons and uses the
experts’ judgements to extract priority scales (Saaty, 2008). It is aimed for states in which
qualitative information (intuitions, feelings, and sentiments) influencing the decision pro-
cess are quantified to deliver a numeric scale for ranking the options (Taha, 2014). It is an
important method to solve multi-attribute decision making problems and is being used since
decades to appraise and support decisions having competing and multiple criteria by priori-
tizing all available decision alternatives (Ahn, 2017; Khalil et al., 2016; Shabbir & Ahmad,
2016; Zahedi, 2008). AHP aids the decision makers in solving the complicated problem by
disintegrating it into a multi-level hierarchic structure of objectives, attributes, sub-attributes
and alternatives, and offers a scale of comparative degrees stated in dominance units to
signify judgments in the form of pairwise comparisons (Xu & Liao, 2014). An interest-
ing discussion on AHP in light of previous studies can be found in Ahmed et  al. (2017).
Moreover, combination of AHP and other methods such as TOPSIS has been used in many
research articles (Samanlioglu et al., 2018; Shaverdi et al., 2016). In short, since its release
AHP is helping people in various fields and industries in making wise decisions when deci-
sion criterions are not few.

1.4. Best/Worst Method

Best/Worst Method (BWM) is one of the recent breakthroughs in the multiple criteria deci-
sion making discipline. BWM was developed by Jafar Rezaei in 2015. BWM was developed
to overcome the drawbacks of AHP in terms of abundant pairwise comparisons and insuf-
ficient consistency (Mi et al., 2019; Mi & Liao, 2019). In BWM, the most significant (best)
and least significant (worst) attributes are pointed out by the decision makers followed by
pairwise comparison between these criteria. Later by formulating a nonlinear maximin/mini-
max problem the weights of these criteria are determined. Details, properties and calculation
steps of BWM can be found in Rezaei (2015, 2016) and Salimi and Rezaei (2018).

1.5. Project Management Knowledge Areas

Project management is one of the very crucial and vastly interdisciplinary shoots of manage-
ment sciences (Mahmoudi et al., 2019b). Projects, the central theme of project management,
imply temporary organizations (or, initiatives) that are usually unique, time-constrained and
dependent on temporarily available people (Bourgault et al., 2008; Hietajärvi & Aaltonen,
2018). Project Management Knowledge Areas (PMKAs) are the knowledge areas within proj-
ect management philosophy, or the Project Management Body of Knowledge, identified by
the PMBOK® Guide, an authoritative publication by Project Management Institute, USA.
There are ten PMKAs so far identified by the Guide. This guide and the knowledge areas
are guiding the project managers around the world since years. As per PMBOK (Project
Management Institute, 2013), the PMKAs are:
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2020, 26(3): 621–641 627

1. Project Integration Management (PIM);

2. Project Scope Management (PSM);
3. Project Time Management (PTM);
4. Project Cost Management (PCoM);
5. Project Quality Management (PQM);
6. Project Human Resource Management (PHRM);
7. Project Communications Management (PCmM);
8. Project Risk Management (PRM);
9. Project Procurement Management (PPM);
10. Project Stakeholder Management (PSHM).
For further details on each of the knowledge area the PMBOK® Guide can be consulted.

2. Research methodology
For data collection, a workshop was organized in Lahore, the provincial capital of the most
populous province of Pakistan. 104 project management related professionals were invited,
but only thirty-three professionals arrived. They were from both manufacturing (PBOs) and
services industries (SBOs). At the end of the workshop, after giving briefing on the important
terms and definitions involved, in light of the PMBOK Guide, they were inquired to rate the
perceived comparative significance of each PMKA for project success, as compared to other
PMKAs, using 5-point likert scale, which was ranging from 1 (least important) to 5 (most
important). Later, it was observed that thirty-one questionnaires were completely filled while
in one questionnaire the respondent perhaps forgot to mark one item. After entering data
in the MS Excel sheet, this missing value was filled using the neighbour generating method
following Liu et al., 2017. Therefore, the data of thirty two respondents (N = NSBO + NPBO =
32) were used for data analysis. Fourteen were from PBOs (NPBO = 14) and eighteen were
from SBOs (NSBO = 18). Since the sample was small thus the data analysis through the Grey
Theory was considered suitable because, unlike statistical methods, the grey models (e.g.,
GRA) reportedly work well with small data sets as well and without any concern for prob-
ability distribution (Javed & Liu, 2019, 2017; Liu & Lin, 2010; Yue, 2009). Microsoft Excel
was used to calculate values for all four methods. In this paper, following Javed et al. (2015),
the companies from the manufacturing industries are called Product-based Organizations
(PBOs) and the companies from the service industries are called Service-based Organiza-
tions (SBOs).

3. Results and discussion

In the following sections the results achieved through Deng’s GRA model and other three
MCDM models have been presented. The correlation between GRA based ranking and other
MCDM models’ based rankings have also been presented to make the comparison conve-
nient.
628 S. A. Javed et al. Distinguishing coefficient driven sensitivity analysis of GRA model for intelligent ...

3.1. Results through GRA method

The results obtained through the equally weighted Deng’s Grey Relational Analysis (GRA)
method are shown in Table  1 and 2. Here mean images are the geometric means of the
original responses, normalized images are the values resulting from the normalization of the
mean images within 0 and 1 and the difference images are the x0 ( k ) − xi ( k ) while consider-
ing X0 = (1, 1, …, 1).

Table 1. Estimating Grey Relational Coefficients (GRCs)

  Mean Images Normalized Images Difference Images GRC

  SBOs PBOs SBOs PBOs SBOs PBOs SBOs PBOs
PCmM 4.3470 3.9681 0.8252 0.8127 0.1748 0.1873 0.7410 0.7275
PCoM 4.5117 3.7829 1.0000 0.5427 0.0000 0.4573 1.0000 0.5223
PHRM 3.8552 3.7655 0.3033 0.5173 0.6967 0.4827 0.4178 0.5088
PIM 3.5694 3.9865 0.0000 0.8394 1.0000 0.1606 0.3333 0.7569
PPM 3.7339 3.4105 0.1746 0.0000 0.8254 1.0000 0.3772 0.3333
PQM 4.3470 4.0967 0.8252 1.0000 0.1748 0.0000 0.7410 1.0000
PRM 3.5929 3.4974 0.0249 0.1266 0.9751 0.8734 0.3390 0.3641
PSHM 3.7755 3.5269 0.2187 0.1697 0.7813 0.8303 0.3902 0.3759
PSM 4.0276 3.9681 0.4862 0.8127 0.5138 0.1873 0.4932 0.7275
PTM 4.0750 4.0505 0.5365 0.9327 0.4635 0.0673 0.5189 0.8814

Table 2. Estimating Grey Relational Grades (GRGs) and Prioritization

w1⋅ GRC w2⋅ GRC Equally Weighted GRG*

Rank Rank Rank
(PBOs) (SBOs) (Overall)
PCmM 0.36374 4/5 0.37048 2 0.73422 3
PCoM 0.26115 6 0.5 1 0.76115 2
PHRM 0.25441 7 0.2089 6 0.46331 7
PIM 0.37845 3 0.16667 10 0.54512 6
PPM 0.16667 10 0.18862 8 0.35528 9
PQM 0.50000 1 0.37048 2 0.87048 1
PRM 0.18203 9 0.16948 9 0.35151 10
PSHM 0.18793 8 0.19512 7 0.38304 8
PSM 0.36374 4/5 0.24659 5 0.61033 5
PTM 0.44072 2 0.25947 4 0.7002 4
Notes: *Equally weighted: w1 = w2 = 0.5 at ξ = 0.5.

3.2. Results through AHP, SAW and BWM methods

The results obtained through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Simple Additive Weight-
ing (SAW) and Best Worst Method (BWM) approaches are shown in the Tables 3, 4 and 5,
respectively.
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2020, 26(3): 621–641 629

Table 3. Analytic Hierarchy Process

Weights Weights Weights

AHP Rank Rank Rank
(PBOs) (SBOs) (Overall)
PCmM 0.104279 4/5 0.109124 2 0.107043 2/3
PCoM 0.09941 6 0.113259 1 0.107043 2/3
PHRM 0.098953 7 0.096779 6 0.097784 6
PIM 0.104761 3 0.089605 10 0.096004 7
PPM 0.089624 10 0.093734 8 0.09197 9
PQM 0.10766 1 0.10912 2 0.10855 1
PRM 0.091908 9 0.090193 9 0.090995 10
PSHM 0.092684 8 0.094779 7 0.093914 8
PSM 0.104279 4/5 0.101105 5 0.102545 5
PTM 0.106444 2 0.102296 4 0.104154 4

Table 4. Simple Additive Weighting

Weights Weights Weights

SAW Rank Rank Rank
(PBOs) (SBOs) (Overall)
PCmM 0.104279 4/5 0.109125 2 0.107043 2/3
PCoM 0.09941 6 0.113259 1 0.107043 2/3
PHRM 0.098953 7 0.096779 6 0.097784 6
PIM 0.104761 3 0.089605 10 0.096004 7
PPM 0.089624 10 0.093734 8 0.09197 9
PQM 0.107657 1 0.109125 2 0.108547 1
PRM 0.091908 9 0.090193 9 0.090995 10
PSHM 0.092684 8 0.094779 7 0.093914 8
PSM 0.104279 4/5 0.101105 5 0.102545 5
PTM 0.106444 2 0.102296 4 0.104154 4 

Table 5. Best Worst Method

Weights Weights Weights

BWM Rank Rank Rank
(PBOs) (SBOs) (Overall)
PCmM 0.102467 4/5 0.107037 2 0.105013 2/3
PCoM 0.097683 6 0.111093 1 0.105013 2/3
PHRM 0.097234 7 0.094928 6 0.09593 6
PIM 0.102941 3 0.087891 10 0.094184 7
PPM 0.088067 10 0.091942 8 0.090226 9
PQM 0.105786 1 0.107037 2 0.106488 1
PRM 0.090311 9 0.088468 9 0.08927 10
PSHM 0.091074 8 0.092966 7 0.092133 8
PSM 0.102467 4/5 0.099172 5 0.1006 5
PTM 0.104595 2 0.100339 4 0.102179 4 
630 S. A. Javed et al. Distinguishing coefficient driven sensitivity analysis of GRA model for intelligent ...

3.3. Comparative analysis

The rankings produced through AHP, SAW and BWM, are exactly same with each method
unable to distinguish PCmM and PCoM based on their relative importance. Thus it is dif-
ficult to distinguish which one is 2nd and 3rd important knowledge area. (1) However, only
GRA model distinguished them and gave PCoM and PCmM second and third ranks respec-
tively. Thus, it is clearly evident that the GRA model, which is better armed to handle uncer-
tainty, clearly outperformed other three MCDM methods and its output is more helpful for
decision making. (2) Also, the positions of PHRM and PIM have been interchanged in grey
relational analysis. These two points differentiated the ranking obtained through GRA with
that of other three MCDM methods. This difference is because of the fact that among the four
MCDM methods only the GRA model is guided by a theory that incorporates uncertainty.
Is it possible that a theory that can perform well under uncertainty can perform well as well
when uncertainty is minimum? Fortunately, as far as GRA model is concerned just by tailor-
ing its one parameter, the distinguishing coefficient, one can make it work like other MCDM
methods. To do so, the authors changed the value of the distinguishing coefficient (ξ) and
obtained the optimum value of the distinguishing coefficient (i.e., 0.86887559934486 = ξo) at
which the ranking of GRA was most comparable to the other three methods. This value can
easily be obtained from any linear programming approach by iterating ξ from 0 to 1 until
the ranks obtained through GRA are comparable to that of other methods. At this value,
both PCmM and PCoM had equal ranks, as shown in Table 6. Here it should be noted that
even though the distinguishing coefficient does not influence the relative order of the grey
relational coefficients however it does influence grey relational grades and their relative order
(Song & Shepperd, 2011). This can be confirmed from Figures 1 and 2 as well.

Table 6. Comparative analysis

  BWM AHP SAW GRA (ξ = ξo)
Overall

Overall

Overall

Overall
PBOs

PBOs

PBOs

PBOs

 
SBOs

SBOs

SBOs

SBOs

PCmM 4/5 2/3 2/3 4/5 2/3 2/3 4/5 2/3 2/3 4/5 2/3 2/3
PCoM 6 1 2/3 6 1 2/3 6 1 2/3 6 1 2/3
PHRM 7 6 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 7 6 7
PIM 3 10 7 3 10 7 3 10 7 3 10 6
PPM 10 8 9 10 8 9 10 8 9 10 8 9
PQM 1 2/3 1 1 2/3 1 1 2/3 1 1 2/3 1
PRM 9 9 10 9 9 10 9 9 10 9 9 10
PSHM 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 7 8
PSM 4/5 5 5 4/5 5 5 4/5 5 5 4/5 5 5
PTM 2 4 4  2 4 4  2 4 4  2 4 4
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2020, 26(3): 621–641 631

Grey Relational Grade (Deng’s Degree of Grey Incidence) 1.0

0.9 PCmM
PCoM
0.8
PHRM
0.7 PIM

0.6 PPM
PQM
0.5
PRM
0.4 xo = 0.8688755934486
PSHM

0.3 PSM
PTM
0.2

0.1

0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95
The distinguishing coefficient (x)

Figure 1. The variation in Grey Relational Grade with respect to ξ

10 PCmM
PCoM
9
PHRM
8 PIM

7 PPM
PQM
6
PRM
Rank

5 PSHM
PSM
4
PTM
3

0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95
The distinguishing coefficient (x)

Figure 2. The variation in Ranking with variation in ξ

As can be seen from Table 6, using all four methods, for Product-based Organizations
(PBOs), the following ranking (as per weights) was obtained
PQM >PTM > PIM > PCmM = PSM > PCoM > PHRM > PSHM > PRM > PPM.

The results reveal that for the project management professionals from manufacturing sec-
tor, Project Quality, Time and Integration Management are the most important knowledge
areas whereas Project Risk and Procurement Management are viewed as least important
areas.
632 S. A. Javed et al. Distinguishing coefficient driven sensitivity analysis of GRA model for intelligent ...

As can be seen from Table 6, using all four methods, for Service-based Organizations
(SBOs), the following ranking (as per weights) was obtained
PCoM > PCmM = PQM > PTM > PSM > PHRM > PSHM > PPM > PRM> PIM.
The results reveal that for the project management professionals from service sector,
Project Cost, Quality and Communication, and Time Management are the most important
knowledge areas whereas Project Risk and Integration Management are viewed as least im-
portant knowledge areas.
However, in overall ranking this is one variation. Overall, the following ranking was
obtained, using GRA model (at ξo).
PQM > PCmM = PCoM > PTM > PSM > PIM >PHRM > PSHM > PPM > PRM.
The results reveal that generally Project Quality, Communication and Cost, and Time
Management are likely the four top most significant PMKAs for the Pakistani project man-
agement professionals who are more likely to overlook Project Risk and Integration Manage-
ment.
Overall, the following ranking was obtained, using other three models.
PQM > PCmM = PCoM > PTM > PSM >PHRM > PIM > PSHM > PPM > PRM.
The only difference is the interchange in the position of Project Integration and Project
Human Resources Management related knowledge areas.
Here it is worth mentioning that for all values between 0 and 1 only at ξ o  =
0.86887559934486, the ranks obtained through GRA model were most comparable to that of
ranks obtained through other MCDM methods. Thus, at ξ = ξo, GRA model is most likely to
behave like any other MCDM method however otherwise its ranks are likely to be different,
and more acceptable to the decision-makers who consider uncertainty in the decision mak-
ing. Based on the GRA model based results, the current study proposes a set of two ranks,
as shown in the Table 7, and it is up to the decision-maker which ranks they choose to trust.
However, in the traditional MCDM methods, all evaluation measures are precise, which is
bit ideal if one weighs in the mind the real life uncertainties that are usual (Liao & Xu, 2013).
Thus, considering uncertainty is better approach than foregoing it in real world problems
thus the ranking obtained through the GRA model (at ξ  = 0.5) is more representative of
actual situation. Here it should be noted that ξo = 0.86887559934486 can be calculated by
varying the value of ξ from 0 to 1 and recording the turning points. The turning point where
GRA based ranking is most acceptable (e.g., the most comparable to that of other MCDM
methods) is the point where ξo lies. Here it should be noted that purpose of predicting ξo is
not to propose another GRA model to compete with already influential Deng’s GRA model
but to enrich our understanding of the behavior of GRA model and its sensitivity to ξ.
In order to confirm that at ξ = ξo (and succeeding values) the ranking of GRA model
is most comparable to the rankings obtained through other three MCDM methods, the au-
thors decided to estimate the correlational measure. For this purpose, Absolute GRA model
(Javed & Liu, 2019) was used to calculate Absolute GRG, or absolute degree of grey relation,
between the two ranking orders (one by GRA model; other by other three MCDM meth-
ods). Absolute GRA model can serve as a suitable grey systems approach to determine the
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2020, 26(3): 621–641 633

correlation between two data sequences bases on their closeness (integral proximity). The
grey correlation measures thus obtained against the ξ (at 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8
and 0.9) are illustrated in the Figure 3. One can see that at ξ = ξo (and succeeding values)
the ranking order obtained through Deng’s GRA model was most comparable to the rank-
ing orders obtained through the other methods. This is very interesting and novel insight of
Deng’s GRA model.

Table 7. The variation in GRA based ranks for ξ = (0.5, ξo)

  GRA (ξ = 0.5 ) GRA (ξ = ξo )

Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank
 
(PBOs) (SBOs) (Overall) (PBOs) (SBOs) (Overall)
PCmM 4/5 2 3 4/5 2/3 2/3
PCoM 6 1 2 6 1 2/3
PHRM 7 6 7 7 6 7
PIM 3 10 6 3 10 6
PPM 10 8 9 10 8 9
PQM 1 2 1 1 2/3 1
PRM 9 9 10 9 9 10
PSHM 8 7 8 8 7 8
PSM 4/5 5 5 4/5 5 5
PTM 2 4 4 2 4 4

Notes: ξo = 0.86887559934486.

1.2
Grey Correlation (Absolute Degree of Grey Relation)

0.9855
1.0
0.8731 0.8731 0.8731 0.8731 0.8731 0.8731 0.8731

0.8

0.7388
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
The Distinguishing Coefficient

Figure 3. The variation in Grey Correlation with change in ξ

634 S. A. Javed et al. Distinguishing coefficient driven sensitivity analysis of GRA model for intelligent ...

Conclusion and recommendations

Decision making is common activity of humans that involves taking effective approach to
rank the alternatives followed by the selection of the best alternative (Yang et  al., 2017).
In real-world problems, especially the problems people face in organizations or projects,
complexities and uncertainties are likely to arise and cannot always be predicted before-
hand (Wu et al., 2018). Complexities and uncertainties are key attributes associated with
projects and their management/organizing. In fact, these factors distinguish a project from
what is not a project. Grey system theory has seen wide number of applications in various
areas including project management and its flagship model, Deng’s GRA model, is gaining
exceeding importance in management sciences for multiple-attribute decision making and
optimizations. However, its one parameter, the Distinguishing Coefficient (ξ), received very
less attention in literature and its influence on the final ranking of the alternatives remained
debatable. In the current study GRA model has been applied on various values of ξ and
some interesting insights have been drawn, when the results were compared with that of
SAW, AHP and BWM.
The results from all methods reveal that in manufacturing industry, project knowledge
areas related to quality, time and integration are perceived to be the most important while
that of risk and procurement are relatively least important. In service industry, knowledge ar-
eas related to cost, communication, quality and time are perceived to be the most important
while that of risk and integration are relatively least important. However, overall, knowledge
areas related to quality, communication, cost and time are most important while that of pro-
curement and risk are relatively least important. Only the position of project integration and
human resources management related knowledge areas interchanged their position in GRA
and other methods. However, the supposedly underrating of project risk management was a
striking finding. The study suggests that by overlooking the significance of project risk man-
agement, the Pakistani project management professionals are more likely to make the projects
more vulnerable to unforeseen circumstances. One can also argue that the reason for their
overlooking project risk management can be attributed to their allegedly higher confidence
level in the effectiveness of their project management strategies. Nevertheless, still this cannot
nullify the significance of project risk management in a world where un-predictabilities and
uncertainties are increasing with time. One can also argue that the results doesn’t imply risk
management is not important, in fact it merely gives relative importance of risk management
with respect to other knowledge areas in light of the respondents’ observations. Further, the
dependence of the ten knowledge areas on each other is very probable thus importance of
one knowledge area doesn’t completely negate the importance of the other.
Since the underline purpose of any MCDM method is to assist the decision-maker in
making rational decisions (Mi et al., 2019) therefore it is difficult to establish the rationality
of decision if the decision-making methodology did not incorporate uncertainty, which is the
usual phenomenon in most real-world problems. Why a problem should be called “problem”
if there isn’t any uncertainty? Most importantly, the study suggests GRA model is a better
alternative to other comparable MCDM methods as its methodology inherently incorporates
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2020, 26(3): 621–641 635

uncertainty in data and by varying the value of the distinguishing coefficient (ξ) it enables
the decision-makers to analyze the sensitivity of the final outcome (ranking). Further, if one
intends to see what would be the ranking of different decision alternatives when uncertainty
is minimum, which is though very unlikely in real life cases, it allows the prediction of a value
of distinguishing coefficient (ξo) where the GRA model almost works like any other MCDM
method, which does not incorporates uncertainty. However, the current study seconds Kuo
et al. (2008) and suggests that variation in ξ allows a decision maker to analyze the sensitivity
of the final results of GRA model, therefore, the future scholars, who intent to deploy GRA
model, should perform the sensitivity analysis as well at different values of ξ rather than
merely reporting results at ξ = 0.5.
The study seconds Kuo et  al. (2008) and Song and Shepperd (2011), and argues that
ξ do influences the final order of decision alternatives, even though the influence is not
significant. It is advised that when the decision environment surrounds uncertainty and dif-
ferent MCDM methods yield different “optimum” alternatives then one should resort to the
alternative acceptable to the decision makers from the optimum alternatives produced by dif-
ferent but comparable methods. When methods are not comparable (because of robustness)
then the optimum alternative provided by the more robust method should be acceptable. In
the current study, AHP and BWM methods are relatively more robust than SAW method
nevertheless they all were producing comparable results, which imply the problem was not
complicated. Their rankings were same and each one of them could not distinguish between
the second and third most important knowledge area. However, when GRA model (at ξ =
0.5) is applied the resulting ranking order was slightly different, even though top 5 alterna-
tives were still comparable, and it successfully distinguished second and third knowledge
areas. This also signifies the robustness of GRA among all other methods. However, since
much of the ranking was comparable a decision maker may think there was no need for
sensitivity analysis however in principle executing the ξ – driven sensitivity analysis is an ac-
ceptable setup as it can boost the confidence in the ranking order obtained through the GRA
model. If the ranking order is stable for much of the variation in ξ this implies the ranking
order’s stability and thus reliability. Another benefit, or insight, that one can draw from the
ξ – driven sensitivity analysis is that it lets the decision makers to see at which points the
ranking order obtained through GRA model is most comparable to that of other methods.
For instance, in the current study, at ξ = ξo (and succeeding points), the correlation between
the four ranking orders was maximum that demonstrated that at this point GRA model is
going to treat the problem as a simple problem, rather than an uncertain problem, like other
MCDM method in the current study. This is very novel and interesting insight and requires
further explorations.

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC-
71771052 and 71372199). An older version of this paper (Javed & Liu, 2017) was presented
by S.A.J. at the 6th IEEE International Conference on Grey Systems and Intelligent Services,
held in Stockholm, Sweden, from 8th to 11th August, 2017.
636 S. A. Javed et al. Distinguishing coefficient driven sensitivity analysis of GRA model for intelligent ...

Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant
[NSFC-71771052 and 71372199 ].

Author contributions
All authors have equally contributed in the manuscript designing, writing, editing and prepa-
ration. Thus, all authors are co-first authors of the study. The names are written in alphabeti-
cal order.

Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in this article.

References

Abhang, L. B., & Hameedullah, M. (2012). Determination of optimum parameters for multi-perfor-
mance characteristics in turning by using grey relational analysis. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 63(1–4), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3857-6
Afshari, A., Mojahed, M., & Yusuff, R. (2010). Simple additive weighting approach to personnel se-
lection problem. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1(5), 511–515.
Ahmed, S., Vedagiri, P., & Krishna Rao, K. V. (2017). Prioritization of pavement maintenance sections
using objective based Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Pavement Research and
Technology, 10(2), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.001
Ahn, B. S. (2017). The analytic hierarchy process with interval preference statements. Omega, 67,
177–185 (United Kingdom). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.05.004
Bakker, R. M. (2010). Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: A systematic review and re-
search agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 466–486.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00281.x
Bourgault, M., Drouin, N., & Hamel, E. (2008). Decision making within distributed project teams: An
exploration of formalization and autonomy as determinants of success. Project Management Journal,
39(1 suppl), S97–S110. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20063
Chou, S. Y., Chang, Y. H., & Shen, C. Y. (2008). A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group
decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. European Journal
of Operational Research, 189(1), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.006
Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2007). How generic are project management knowledge and practice? Proj-
ect Management Journal, 38(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280703800109
Deng, J. (1989). Introduction to Grey System Theory. The Journal of Grey System, 1(1), 1–24.
Drouin, N., Müller, R., & Sankaran, S. (2016). Novel approaches to organizational project management
research: Translational and transformational. Project Management Journal, 47(1), e2–e2.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21567
Dumrak, J., Baroudi, B., & Hadjinicolaou, N. (2017). Exploring the Association between Project Man-
agement Knowledge Areas and Sustainable Outcomes. Procedia Engineering, 182, 157–164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.152
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2020, 26(3): 621–641 637

Eastham, J., Tucker, D. J., Varma, S., & Sutton, S. M. (2014). PLM software selection model for project
management using hierarchical decision modeling with criteria from PMBOK® knowledge areas.
Engineering Management Journal, 26(3), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2014.11432016
Floricel, S., Michela, J. L., & Piperca, S. (2016). Complexity, uncertainty-reduction strategies, and proj-
ect performance. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1360–1383.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.11.007
Garel, G. (2013). A history of project management models: From pre-models to the standard models.
International Journal of Project Management, 31(5), 663–669.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.011
Haeri, S. A. S., & Rezaei, J. (2019). A grey-based green supplier selection model for uncertain environ-
ments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 221, 768–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.193
He, Q., Luo, L., Hu, Y., & Chan, A. P. C. (2015). Measuring the complexity of mega construction projects
in China – A fuzzy analytic network process analysis. International Journal of Project Management,
33(3), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.009
Hietajärvi, A. M., & Aaltonen, K. (2018). The formation of a collaborative project identity in an infra-
structure alliance project. Construction Management and Economics, 36(1), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2017.1315149
Hwang, B. G., & Ng, W. J. (2013). Project management knowledge and skills for green construction:
Overcoming challenges. International Journal of Project Management, 31(2), 272–284.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.05.004
Javed, S., Javed, S., & Sajid, A. S. (2015). Assessing the managerial perception of relative significance
of ten Knowledge Areas on project success – A case from Pakistan. Journal of Management and
Science, 5(3), 1–18.
Javed, S. A. (2019). A novel research on Grey Incidence Analysis models and its application in Project
Management (Doctoral dissertation). Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing,
P. R. China.
Javed, S. A., & Liu, S. (2017). Evaluation of project management knowledge areas using grey incidence
model and AHP. In 2017 International Conference on Grey Systems and Intelligent Services (GSIS)
(pp. 120–120). IEEE. Stockholm, Sweden. https://doi.org/10.1109/GSIS.2017.8077684
Javed, S. A., & Liu, S. (2019). Bidirectional Absolute GRA/GIA model for Uncertain Systems: Applica-
tion in Project Management. IEEE Access, 7, 60885–60896.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2904632
Javed, S. A., Khan, A. M., Dong, W., Raza, A., & Liu, S. (2019c). Systems evaluation through new Grey
Relational Analysis approach: An application on thermal conductivity – Petrophysical parameters’
relationships. Processes, 7(6), 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7060348
Javed, S. A., Mahmoudi, A., Khan, A. M., Javed, S., & Liu, S. (2018a). A critical review: Shape optimiza-
tion of welded plate heat exchangers based on grey correlation theory. Applied Thermal Engineering,
144, 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.08.086
Javed, S. A., Syed, A. M., & Javed, S. (2018b). Perceived organizational performance and trust in project
manager and top management in project-based organizations. Grey Systems: Theory and Applica-
tion, 8(3), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/GS-01-2018-0009
Jiang, B. C., Tasi, S. L., & Wang, C. C. (2002). Machine vision-based gray relational theory applied to IC
marking inspection. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, 15(4), 531–539.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSM.2002.804906
Kaganer, E., Carmel, E., Hirscheim, R., & Olsen, T. (2013). Managing the human cloud. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 54(2), 22–32. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/
26e19f5086.pdf
638 S. A. Javed et al. Distinguishing coefficient driven sensitivity analysis of GRA model for intelligent ...

Kerzner, H. (2014). Project management best practices: Achieving global excellence (4th ed.). John Wiley
& Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118835531
Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling
(12th  ed.). John Wiley & Sons. 848  p. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Project+Management%3A+
A+Systems+Approach+to+Planning%2C+Scheduling%2C+and+Controlling%2C+12th+Edition
-p-9781119165354
Khalil, N., Kamaruzzaman, S. N., & Baharum, M. R. (2016). Ranking the indicators of building per-
formance and the users’ risk via Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): Case of Malaysia. Ecological
Indicators, 71, 567–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.032
Kuo, Y., Yang, T., & Huang, G.-W. (2008). The use of grey relational analysis in solving multiple attribute
decision-making problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 55(1), 80–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.12.002
Li, B. J., Hu, L. P., He, C. H., & Li, Y. H. (2011). Dynamical analysis on influencing factors of grain
production in Henan Province based on grey systems theory. In Proceedings of 2011 IEEE Inter-
national Conference on Grey Systems and Intelligent Services, GSIS’11 – Joint with the 15th WOSC
International Congress on Cybernetics and Systems (pp. 106–110). Nanjing, China.
https://doi.org/10.1109/GSIS.2011.6044017
Liang, D., Darko, A. P., & Xu, Z. (2019). Pythagorean fuzzy partitioned geometric Bonferroni mean and
its application to multi-criteria group decision making with grey relational analysis. International
Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 21, 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0544-x
Liang, D., Kobina, A., & Quan, W. (2018). Grey relational analysis method for probabilistic linguistic
multi-criteria group decision-making based on geometric Bonferroni mean. International Journal
of Fuzzy Systems, 20, 2234–2244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-017-0374-2
Liao, H. C., Yang, L. Y., & Xu, Z. S. (2018). Two new approaches based on ELECTRE II to solve the
multiple criteria decision making problems with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Applied Soft
Computing Journal, 63, 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.11.049
Liao, H., & Xu, Z. (2013). A VIKOR-based method for hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision making.
Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 12, 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-013-9162-0
Liao, H., & Xu, Z. (2017). Hesitant fuzzy decision making methodologies and applications. Springer
Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3265-3
Liao, H., Jiang, L., Xu, Z., Xu, J., & Herrera, F. (2017). A linear programming method for multiple
criteria decision making with probabilistic linguistic information. Information Sciences, 415–416,
341–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.06.035
Liao, H., Xu, Z., & Zeng, X. J. (2015). Novel correlation coefficients between hesitant fuzzy sets and
their application in decision making. Knowledge-Based Systems, 82, 115–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.02.020
Liu, S., & Lin, Y. (2010). Grey systems: Theory and applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16158-2
Liu, S., Yang, Y., & Forrest, J. (2017). Grey data analysis: Methods, models and applications. Singapore:
Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1841-1
MacCrimmon, K. R. (1968). Decisionmaking among multiple–attribute alternatives: A Survey and con-
solidated approach. Arpa Order.
Mahmoudi, A., & Feylizadeh, M. R. (2018). A grey mathematical model for crashing of projects by
considering time, cost, quality, risk and law of diminishing returns. Grey Systems: Theory and Ap-
plication, 8(3), 272–294. https://doi.org/10.1108/GS-12-2017-0042
Mahmoudi, A., Bagherpour, M., & Javed, S. A. (2019b). Grey earned value management: Theory and
applications. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1–19 (in press).
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2920904
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2020, 26(3): 621–641 639

Mahmoudi, A., Liu, S. F., Javed, S. A., & Abbasi, M. (2019a). A novel method of solving linear program-
ming with grey parameters. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 36(1), 161–172.
https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-181071
Mesquida, A.-L., & Mas, A. (2014). A project management improvement program according to ISO/
IEC 29110 and PMBOK ®. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 26(9), 846–854.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.1665
Mi, X., & Liao, H. (2019). An integrated approach to multiple criteria decision making based on the av-
erage solution and normalized weights of criteria deduced by the hesitant fuzzy best worst method.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 133, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.05.004
Mi, X., Tang, M., Liao, H., Shen, W., & Lev, B. (2019). The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and
applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what’s next?
Omega, 87, 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.01.009
Nguyen, L. D., Chih, Y.-Y., & García de Soto, B. (2016). Knowledge areas delivered in project manage-
ment programs: Exploratory study. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33(1).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000473
Oun, T. A., Blackburn, T. D., Olson, B. A., & Blessner, P. (2016). An enterprise-wide knowledge manage-
ment approach to project management. Engineering Management Journal, 28(3), 179–192.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2016.1203715
Padalkar, M., & Gopinath, S. (2016). Six decades of project management research: Thematic trends and
future opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1305–1321.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.006
Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK®
guide). https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21345
Project Management Institute. (2017). Project management body of knowledge: A guide to the project
management body of knowledge. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20125
Quartey-Papafio, T. K., Liu, S., & Javed, S. (2019). Grey relational evaluation of impact and control of
malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 9(4), 415–431.
https://doi.org/10.1108/GS-06-2019-0020
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear
model. Omega, 109(3), 1911–1938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001
Rocha, L., Tereso, A., & Couto, J. P. (2015). Project management: evaluation of the problems in the
Portuguese construction industry. In A. Rocha, A. Correia, S. Costanzo, & L. Reis (Eds.), New
contributions in information systems and technologies. Advances in intelligent systems and computing
(Vol. 353, pp. 69–78). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16486-1_7
Saaty, T. L. (1986). Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 32(7),
841–855. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.841
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services
Sciences, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
Salet, W., Bertolini, L., & Giezen, M. (2013). Complexity and uncertainty: Problem or asset in decision
making of mega infrastructure projects? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
37(6), 1984–2000. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01133.x
Salimi, N., & Rezaei, J. (2018). Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 66, 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.10.002
640 S. A. Javed et al. Distinguishing coefficient driven sensitivity analysis of GRA model for intelligent ...

Sallehuddin, R., Shamsuddin, S. M. Hj., & Hashim, S. Z. M. (2008). Application of grey relational analy-
sis for multivariate time series. In 2008 8th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design
and Applications. Kaohsiung, Taiwan. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDA.2008.181
Samanlioglu, F., Taskaya, Y. E., Gulen, U. C., & Cokcan, O. (2018). A fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS-based group
decision-making approach to it personnel selection. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20,
1576–1591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0474-7
Serra, C. E. M. (2017). Benefits realization management: Strategic value from portfolios, programs, and
projects. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.worldcat.org/title/benefits-realization-
management-strategic-value-from-portfolios-programs-and-projects/oclc/956583875
Shabbir, R., & Ahmad, S. S. (2016). Water resource vulnerability assessment in Rawalpindi and Islam-
abad, Pakistan using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Journal of King Saud University – Science,
28(4), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2015.09.007
Shaverdi, M., Ramezani, I., Tahmasebi, R., & Rostamy, A. A. A. (2016). Combining fuzzy AHP and
fuzzy TOPSIS with financial ratios to design a novel performance evaluation model. International
Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 18(2), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-016-0142-8
Song, Q., & Shepperd, M. (2011). Predicting software project effort: A grey relational analysis based
method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7302–7316.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.005
Taha, H. A. (2014). Operations research – An introduction (Chapter 5, 9th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Vanhoucke, M. (2013). Project management with dynamic scheduling – Baseline scheduling, risk analysis
and project control (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40438-2_5
Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., & Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for future research in project manage-
ment: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network. International Journal of
Project Management, 24(8), 638–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.009
Wu, H., Xu, Z., Ren, P., & Liao, H. (2018). Hesitant fuzzy linguistic projection model to multi-criteria
decision making for hospital decision support systems. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 115,
449–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.11.023
Wu, L. F., Liu, S. F., Yao, L. G., & Yan, S. L. (2013). Grey convex relational degree and its application to
evaluate regional economic sustainability. Scientia Iranica, 20(1), 44–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2012.11.002
Wu, W. Y., & Chen, S. P. (2005). A prediction method using the grey model GMC (1, n) combined with
the grey relational analysis: A case study on Internet access population forecast. Applied Mathemat-
ics and Computation, 169(1), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2004.10.087
Xu, Z., & Liao, H. (2014). Intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy
Systems, 22(4), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2272585
Yang, X., Xu, Z., & Liao, H. (2017). Correlation coefficients of hesitant multiplicative sets and their ap-
plications in decision making and clustering analysis. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 61, 935–946.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.08.011
Yue, H. (2009). Grey absolute degree of incidence analysis of citation indicators of management aca-
demic journals. In 3rd International Symposium on Intelligent Information Technology Application,
IITA 2009 (pp. 19–22). Shanghai, China. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IITA.2009.258
Zahedi, F. (1986). The analytic hierarchy process  – A survey of the method and its applications.
INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.16.4.96
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2008). Multicriteria selection of project managers
by applying grey criteria. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 14(4), 462–477.
https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-8619.2008.14.462-477
 Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2020, 26(3): 621–641 641

Zavadskas, E. K., Vilutienė, T., Turskis, Z., & Tamosaitienė, J. (2010). Contractor selection for con-
struction works by applying saw‐g and topsis grey techniques. Journal of Business Economics and
Management, 11(1), 34–55. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.03
Zhang, K., Ye, W., & Zhao, L. (2012). The absolute degree of grey incidence for grey sequence base on
standard grey interval number operation. Kybernetes, 41(7/8), 934–944.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03684921211257784
Zwikael, O. (2009). The relative importance of the PMBOK® guide’s nine knowledge areas during project
planning. Project Management Journal, 40(4), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20116

View publication stats