Project Decision Chain

PAPERS
Project Decision Chain

Asbjrn Rolstads, Department of Production and Quality Engineering,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Jeffrey K. Pinto, Sam and Irene Black School of Business, The Behrend College,
Penn State University, Erie, PA, USA
Peter Falster, DTU Compute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngy, Denmark
Ray Venkataraman, Sam and Irene Black School of Business, The Behrend College,
Penn State University, Erie, PA, USA
ABSTRACT
To add value to project performance and
help obtain project success, a new framework for decision making in projects is
defined. It introduces the project decision
chain inspired by the supply chain thinking
in the manufacturing sector and uses three
types of decisions: authorization, selection,
and plan decision. A primitive decision element is defined where all the three decision
types can be accommodated. Each task in
the primitive element can in itself contain
subtasks that in turn will comprise new primitive elements. The primitive elements are
nested together in a project decision chain.
KEYWORDS: project management; decision making; decision support; decision
chain; project success; project risk; project
uncertainty
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 4, 619

2015 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21517
INTRODUCTION
n all projects, a number of decisions are made. Many think of decision

making as one of the core activities of a project manager; thus, competence
in decision making and tools to aid the decision-making process are of
crucial importance for project success.
But how formalized is the decision-making process in projects? Do we
have a clear understanding of the various types of decisions? How are decisions documented? What methods are available for the decision maker?
Fischer and Adams (2011) studied engineering-based decisions in construction and claim that the (construction) industry has a crying need for
engineers to ensure that field decisions are made using the required level of
technical analysis. They also point to the fact that decisions must be made in
the heat of the battle; every minute counts, and there is no place to hide.
Arroyo (2014) conducted interviews and case studies and found that:
Decisions are rarely documented.

Rationale is not clear.
Formal decision-making methods are seldom used.
The decision-making process usually lacks transparency and does not help in
building consensus or continuous learning.
Multiple stakeholders with different perspectives and conflicts of interests are
involved.
In this article we will argue that a more formal and rigorous approach to
decision making is needed. This will improve the quality of the decision and
develop commitment and understanding in the project organization. Rolstads, Pinto, Falster, and Venkataraman (2014) make a distinction between
the process of producing the project results and the management and leadership of the human resources involved. The first is referred to as technical
aspects; the second is organizational aspects. (This is in line with the distinction between project success and project management success, as we will discuss later.) This means that there are decisions made concerning the choice
of technology, budget spending, and time allocation. These decisions may be
different from the decisions made regarding organizational structure, personnel allocation, and contractor involvement.
Whether the focus is on technical aspects or on organizational performance, we need to distinguish between a prescriptive or adaptive approach
to management of the project (Rolstads, Tommelein, Schiefloe, & Ballard, 2014). The Pentagon model for analyzing organizational performance
( Schiefloe, 2011) is used to explain the difference between these two
approaches. Factors such as structure and technologies are formal qualities.
August/September 2015 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
The prescriptive approach enters the

project through these formal qualities,
which means that a full project governance system is available and that
project execution is based on the organizational experience this represents.
Factors such as culture, interaction, and
social relations and networks are informal qualities. The adaptive approach
enters the project through these informal qualities. Project stakeholders
are then selected based on intent to
cooperate and social relations, and the
organization is adapted to a governing system during project execution.
Decision making is, of course, different depending on which of these two
approaches is selected.
Sderlund (2010) also supports
the view of difference in approach and
defines seven project management
schools of thought: optimization, factor, contingency, behavior, governance,
relationship, and decision. Obviously,
the thinking of the decision maker is
influenced by the school he or she represents; again, this will color the decision making because he or she will be
looking at the situation through different lenses.
Similarly, Divekar, Bangal, and
Sumangala (2012) discuss the prescriptive and descriptive models of decision making and claim that prescriptive
decision scientists are concerned with
prescribing methods for making optimal decisions. Descriptive decision
researchers are concerned with the
bounded way in which decisions are
actually made.
All projects carry risk. Risk is closely
connected to the decision-making
process (Rolstads, Hetland, Jergeas,
& Westney, 2011). Any decision introduces some risk or presents some kind
of opportunity. At the same time, decisions are often made to mitigate risk or
to capitalize on an opportunity. Managing risks may lead to changes to plans.
Such decisions require a higher level
of understanding and creative thought
than the original plan (Fischer & Adams,
2011).
Marques, Gourc, and Lauras (2010)

are looking at projects as complex systems and claim that when complexity
becomes sufficiently large, the possibilities and interrelations become so fuzzy
that decision making has to be assisted
by the appropriate tools and skills.
They argue for the need for a modeling
approach to decision making. Brady and
Davies (2014) also support this view.
The quality of a decision depends
on the capacity of the decision maker
to perform a twin evaluation (Marques
etal., 2010):
conceptualized into a project decision

chain resembling the well-known value
chain found in the manufacturing industry. We will base our discussion on a
capital value process model as shown in
Figure 1 (Rolstads, Pinto, et al., 2014).
The business cycle is a preproject stage
during which business opportunities are
explored. The project cycle covers the
project execution through different project phases. The operation cycle covers
the use of the project results and represents the benefit stage.
The current situation of the project

versus the initial objectives (a priori
evaluation); and
The possible evolution of the project
according to decisions and events (a
posteriori evaluation).
Decision theory is a general research

field covering applications in various
areas; typically, it is considered as operations research or systems theory. Our
research is limited to decision making
in projects. The rationale for this is
that we believe that project success is
more likely if the decision process in a
project is better formalized and managed; thus, we have not reviewed the
general decision theory literature, but
limited our literature search to what
has been published in the main project
management journals. We found a large
number of publications. When we took
a closer look at the articles, however, we
found the main focus to be on the decisions connected to ranking or selection
of alternatives. We sorted the articles
according to their main decision focus:
Most of the project management

literature on decision making is concerned with project selection. We claim
that decision making in project management is much broader and embedded in the whole life cycle, beginning
with the business opportunity through
the obtained benefit from the project.
The above discussion shows that
decision making in projects is a multifaceted problem; however, there are two
different aspects:
The lenses through which the decision problem is regarded (descriptive/
adaptive approach, schools of thought,
risk focus); and
The process of making the decision
(prescriptive/descriptive, a priori/a
posteriori).
The lenses through which we regard
the problem represent the mindset of
the decision maker. Even though the
success criteria are the same, two people with two different mindsets may
make different decisions.
In this article, we will take a closer look
at the different types of decisions and the
associated decision-making techniques.
We will show how the decisions can be
Literature Review
Decision environmentlooking at how

and when decision support is beneficial, requirements for decision making,
and the impact of different factors on
decisions
Decision-making processlooking at
the decision process itself
Decision-making toolslooking at the
tools, methods, and models used in
decision making
Applicationslooking at the specific applications or cases of decision
making
Decision Environment
The structuring of decision activities is
recognized in the literature as one of
PAPERS
Business cycle
Screening
Bid
business
preparation
opportunities
Negotiation
Project cycle
Conceptualization
Planning
Execution
Termination
Operation cycle
Operation and
maintenance
Demolition
Figure 1: Capital value process (Rolstads, Pinto, etal., 2014, p. 34).
the most important components of the

decision-making process. Based on literature studies on the decision-making
process in a distributed team environment, Bourgault, Drouin, and Hamel
(2008) developed a theoretical model
that links team autonomy and formalization of the decision-making process
to the quality of decisions and teamwork effectiveness with varying levels of
geographical dispersion.
Karim (2011) explore and measure
the impact of project management
information system (PMIS) factors on
an efficient and effective project management decision-making process. The
factors investigated are information
quality, analytical quality, system quality, technical quality, communication
quality, and decision makers quality.
The results showed a significant contribution (effect) of PMIS to better project
planning, scheduling, monitoring, and
controlling.
The project managers dissatisfaction with PMIS was the background for
a similar study conducted by Canils
and Bakens (2012) to gain a better
understanding of the elements of PMIS
that contribute to decision-making
quality in a multi-project environment.
They investigated the relationships
between six factors: project overload,
information overload, information
quality, project manager satisfaction
with PMIS, use of PMIS information,
8
and quality of decision making; they

found that project overload, as well as
information overload, is positively, but
weakly, related to PMIS information
quality.
Human decision makers are often
stubborn and very often overly optimistic about the influence they have over
the outcomes of projects. Meyer (2014)
presents the findings from an experiment, which investigated to what extent
decision makers suffer from optimism
bias when escalating a commitment to
failing projects. He proposes a new form
of optimism bias, called post-project
optimism bias. It is an overly optimistic
belief that a project will deliver better business benefits than what was
planned or that can be proven. It is further confirmed that both post-project
and in-project optimism biases have
significant effects on the escalation of
commitment to failing projects.
Earlier product development literature has largely covered planned decisions and go/no-go decision criteria in
line with a phased product development
process. Project management literature,
in turn, suggests change management
processes and practices during the project. Earlier research has not sufficiently
covered criteria for change decisions
that are needed between product development gates, nor a holistic approach
for making such decisions in complex
product development projects.
The study by Steffens, Martinsuo,

and Artto (2007) explores the use of
decision criteria for change requests
of product development projects. The
project management literature suggests
change management processes during the project execution. The product development literature has mainly
covered planned decisions and go/
no-go decision criteria during a phased
product development process. The
article investigates decision criteria
including project efficiency, customer
impact, business success, preparing for
the future, and the project portfolio in
change management in complex product development projects. Only the last
decision criterion was not actively used
as an evaluation criterion.
Decision-Making Process
Project management, confronted with
a sudden change in project scope or an
unexpected development, must make a
series of agile interrelated decisions in
response. Knowledge about the content
of and interconnections between decisions made in similar circumstances in
the past can help the project manager
keep in mind all the decisions that need
to be made. Karni and Kaner (2005)
have developed an agile knowledgebased, decision-making approach based
on an integrated case- and clusterbased architecture for supporting these
decisions.
Mafakheri, Nasiri, and Mousavi

(2008) propose a decision aid model
using fuzzy set theory for assessment
of project agility. This model considers multiple dimensions for agileness,
and the proposed model provides an
opportunity for using a range of aggregation operators to determine the index
of agility.
Based on Simons principles of
bounded rationality to decision making (Simon, 1960), Gidel, Gautier, and
Duchamp (2005) developed a decisionmaking framework methodology for
project risk management in new product design. The decision-making framework facilitates the process of deciding
whether to take risks, take action to
reduce the causes of risks, take action to
reduce the consequences, or take action
to improve the detection of risks.
Decision-Making Tools
Multiple criteria decision analysis
(MCDA) is a discipline in its own right
and extensive literature exists on the
subject. Some of the original writing on
decision making goes back to the work
by A. M. Wellington on The Economic
Theory of Railway Location (1887)
(Grant, Grant, & Leavenworth, 1990).
The work developed into the discipline
of engineering economics, described in
the book Principles of Engineering Economic (1990) by Eugene Grant and has
also been reported by Jim Suhr (1999).
Saaty (1980) developed the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a multicriteria decision-making method. This
method aims at quantifying relative priorities for a given set of alternatives on
a ratio scale, based on the judgment
of the decision maker; it stresses the
importance of the intuitive judgments
of a decision maker as well as the consistency of the comparison of alternatives in the decision-making process.
An original decision-making system
based on Choosing By Advantages (CBA)
was developed by Suhr (1999). The CBA
system is a complete set of tools for the
decision maker, including definitions,
principles, models, and methods for
practically all types of decisions. Sound

methods base decisions on the importance of prospective differences among
the alternatives. CBA postpones value
judgment about alternatives as long as
possible. In contrast, value-based methods set the weights of the factors early in
the decision-making process.
The GRAI method (Doumeingts,
1984), developed at the University of
Bourdeaux, was originally designed for
production management. The articles
by Ridgway (1992) and Wortmann,
Muntslag, and Timmermans (1997)
demonstrate that it can also be used to
analyze decision centers and information flow in the management of a large
project. It identifies inconsistencies in
the management structure and the flow
of information between decision centers. The GRAI method is explained in
the next section.
Arroyo (2014) has evaluated the
ability of Multiple-Criteria DecisionMaking (MCDM) methods to help
design teams choose a sustainable
alternative during commercial building
design. The work identifies several types
of MCDM methods in the literature and
those with potential application for the
selection decision problem are:
Goal-programming and multi-objective
optimization methods
Value-based methods (including
Analytical Hierarchy Process [AHP]
and Weighting Rating and Calculating
[WRC])
Outranking methods
Choosing By Advantages (CBA)
In particular, Arroyo claims that
CBA is shown to be one of the most
promising methods.
Dealing with practical problems and
difficulties experienced with the value
function approach, the Outranking
Methods were developed in France in
the late 1960s (Figueira & Roy, 2002) and
are closely associated with the name of
Bernard Roy, who developed the family
of Electre Methods, which mainly feature
modeling preferences; in other words,
comparing all feasible alternatives or

actions by pair building up some binary
relationscrisp or fuzzythen exploiting these relations appropriately in order
to obtain final recommendations.
Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to
Creative Decision Making by Keeney
(1996) claims that the conventional
approaches to decision making focus
on alternatives. However, alternatives
are only the means to an end, namely to
achieve values. Decision making, therefore, should begin with values because
they are fundamental and the driving
force behind decision making.
Designers develop alternatives, and
gradually narrow down the alternatives
by eliminating alternatives until they
come to a final solution (Sobek, Ward,
& Liker, 1999). In Set-Based Design
(SBD), designers are encouraged to
explore alternatives collaboratively and
keep them open until the last possible
moment, thereby reducing negative
design iteration. This is in contrast to
Point-Based Design, where one alternative is selected earlier in the design process and presented to the next design
specialist.
Barton and Love (2000) use the idea
of decision chains to argue that product
design decisions are part of a chain
of decisions that extend to the design
and operation of the downstream
processes that ultimately manufacture
and support the product. The decision
process moves from the abstract to the
concrete with the solution on one level
becoming part of the requirements and
constraints on the next level.
Applications
Applications of decision support tools
in project management are concerned
with selection problems in portfolios
and projects, contractor selection, and
the selection between different activities. Because our research focuses on a
decision chain model, we present only
limited article reviews on various applications.
Khalili-Damghani and Tavana
(2014) propose an integrated approach
for strategic and sustainable project

portfolio selection, which is composed
of first using strategic planning and sustainability concepts to select a set of
promising projects and, second, using a
project portfolio selection procedure to
choose among the promising projects
identified. A structural equation model
is used to analyze and explain the relationships among different factors in the
proposed framework.
Abbasianjahromi, Rajaie, Shakeri,
and Chokan (2014) explore allocating
the best portion of tasks to subcontractors while optimizing the risk and cost
in the fixed project schedule. The main
finding demonstrates that subcontractor
selection without attention to the order
allocation is not a realistic approach;
therefore, a hybrid model that applies
continuous ant colony and fuzzy set
theory is proposed.
Satisfying objective values in realworld project management decisions
would often be imprecise because the
cost coefficients and parameters are
imprecise. The work of Liang (2009)
focuses on the application of fuzzy sets
to solve fuzzy multi-objective project
management decision problems. The
proposed possibilistic linear programming approach attempts to simultaneously minimize total project costs and
completion time with reference to direct
costs, indirect costs, relevant activity
times and costs, and budget constraints.
Results
achieved
Inputs
PAPERS
Future
plans
The case study by Strang (2010)

develops and examines a mixed-method,
integrated qualitative and quantitative
portfolio selection model, applied to
a nuclear tritium extraction facility
project concept. The study presents a
new model, weighted normalized portfolio selection, and evaluation method,
by building on an existing AHP theory
using statistical principles.
By applying the AHP theory, AlHarbi (2001) describes how the prequalification criteria can be prioritized and a
descending-order list of contractors can
be made in order to select the best contractors to perform a specific project.
Decision problem often has to take
conflicting views into account. The
study by Mota, Almeida, and Alencar
(2009) presents a model focusing on
the main tasks of a project network by
assigning priorities to activities using a
multiple criteria decision aid (MCDA)
approach. The model is illustrated by
a case study of the construction of an
electricity substation.
Decision-Making Process
Traditionally, decision making is about
identifying problems and analyzing,
developing, and choosing between
alternative courses of action to achieve
a desired objective. As we will see, however, our scope is broader: decision
making is more than selecting from a
list of alternatives. Several models for
1. Intelligence activity
2. Design activity
3. Choice activity
Drucker (1955) defined a similar
model with six steps by adding an action
and follow-up activity to Simons model:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Define the problem

Analyze the problem
Develop alternative solutions
Decide on the best solution
Convert decisions into effective
actions
6. Follow-up on actions taken
Rolstads, Pinto, et al. (2014) published a model of the decision-making
process (as shown in Figure 2). A core
part of this is the decision preparation,
taking input from the results achieved,
future plans, problems identified, and
policies deployed. The preparation uses
decision factors, which are variables to
take into account; it is facilitated by the
application of decision-making methods. The decision will produce some
action. The outcome of this is, however,
influenced by uncertainty. The uncertainty may either be imposed by nature
or come as a result of stakeholders
influence or actions.
Decision
factors
Decision
preparation
Decision
Action
Result
Problems
identied
Policies
Uncertainty
Decision
methods
Nature
Figure 2: Decision-making process (Rolstads, Pinto, etal., 2014, p. 82).
10
decision making exist: John Dewey proposed a model in 1910 (Dewey, 1978),
which was modified by Simon (1960).
His model had three steps:
Stakeholders
This model is in line with the model

published by Drucker (1955). Decision
preparation corresponds to Druckers
steps 1, 2, and 3; decision corresponds
to step 4; and action corresponds to
steps 5 and 6.
The capital value process model in
Figure 1 is, from a generic point of view,
also a decision-making process.
Most decision-making models are
designed to aid a choice or a selection
process; however, all projects have at
least one sanction point. This is a decision to proceed or not and is somewhat
different from a selection (although it is
a selection between two alternatives),
as the purpose is to obtain an authorization in contrast to ranking or selecting
among alternative solutions to a problem. In addition, the project execution
plan represents a decision to carry out
activities and spend resources, which
shows that there are at least three different types of decisions to be made in
a project (Rolstads, Pinto, etal., 2014):
Selection decisions
Authorization decisions
Plan decisions
Selection decisions are the selection
of one (or more) alternative(s) from a
list of options. Typically, they are concerned with finding the best solutions
from a number of potential alternatives.
Often a selection decision includes
ranking the alternatives as well; this
decision is fundamentally what is discussed and covered by the rational
decision-making model developed by
Simon (1960) and Drucker (1955).
Authorization decisions are go/
no-go, yes/no, or go/stop decisions.
Some decision background data are
developed and used for the decision
making. An example could be the investor looking at a prospect and reviewing its capital exposure, payback time,
net present value, and internal rate of
return, before saying yes or no.
Plan decisions are the approval of
plans that establish what to do, how,
and when. Other details may also be
included, for example, a budget or the

preferred choice of a contractor. Inherent in a plan decision is an authorization to initiate the plan; in this way
it differs from the authorization decision, which is merely a go/no-go decision. Plan decisions initiate activity that
will accomplish the project objectives
and deliver the results by synchronization of products and resources. Plans
are also used to monitor work progress
and decide on the necessary corrective
actions. Plans may be changed according to a range of factors: requests from
the owner (changed authorization);
decisions to correct errors (e.g., a design
that proves to be infeasible); to improve
the project results (e.g., taking advantage of new technology); or to reduce
costs. Plan decisions also include decisions to initiate corrective actions and
incorporate approved changes in the
plans and, in addition, to initiate and
monitor any actions following from
these changes. The formal approval of a
single change order is a go/no-go decision (authorization decision).
To study the decision-making process, we can benefit from a modeling
approach (Marques etal., 2010; Brady &
Davies, 2014). The generic GRAI model
(Doumeingts, 1984) has been developed
to model decision making in production management. Ridgway (1992) and
Wortmann etal. (1997) have shown how
the GRAI model can be applied to project management.
The GRAI model splits the production management and the project management system into three subsystems:
The physical system
The information system
The decisional system
The physical system consists of all
the activities related to the realization
of a project. The physical flow is both
the flow of documents and information
in the conceptualization and planning
phases and the material flow in the execution phase of the project cycle. The
information system collects and stores
information on the physical and decisional activities and provides information to these activities. The decisional
system is composed of all the control
decision centers aimed at managing the
physical system.
The GRAI model uses two formalisms (Wortmann etal., 1997): The GRAI
grid and the GRAI nets.
The GRAI grid (Figure 3) is a macromodel of the decisional structure. The
decision centers are linked together with
arrows denoting flow of information.
Decisions need to be made with reference to a horizon of time. Therefore,
the criterion of vertical decomposition
is based on timethe decision horizon
and the decision period. The horizontal
decomposition is based on the type of
management decisions (manage products, plan, manage resources).
The GRAI nets represent the
micro-model of the decisional structure. There are two types of nets: to
do for programmed decisions and the
more advanced to decide for nonprogrammed decisions, which relies on
the decision makers ability to make a
decision using certain inputs as shown
in Figure 2.
Decision Methods
As our review of literature shows, there
are numerous publications on selection
decisions; most use multiple criteria,
some consider uncertainty.
Flp (2005) claims that making a
decision implies that there are alternative choices to be considered and
distinguishes between single and multiple criteria, and whether there are a
finite or infinite number of alternatives. He breaks down multiple criteria methods according to cost benefit
analysis, elementary methods, multiattribute utility theory, and outranking methods. Arroyo (2014) has also
studied multiple criteria decision
methods and compares four types:
goal programming and multi-objective
optimization, value based methods,
outranking methods, and choosing by
advantages.
11
PAPERS
Function
Horizon
Period
To manage
products
H = 18 months
P = 3 months
To plan
To manage
resources
Decisional link
Informational link
H = 3 months
P = 1 month
H = 1 month
P = 1 week
H = 1 week
P = 1 day
Figure 3: The basic GRAI grid.
To support our wider view on decision making, including authorization

and plan decisions, we will use a classification of methods from Rolstads,
Pinto, etal. (2014, p. 86):
Direct evaluation techniques, where
the preferred alternative is checked or
decided on directly.
Criteria-based evaluation techniques,
where specific criteria (normally more
than one) are used to select and rank
alternatives. There are methods using
quantitative or qualitative criteria.
Criteria may be both stochastic and
deterministic.
Deterministic and stochastic planning
techniques, which are planning techniques based on either deterministic
data or data with uncertainty.
Type of Technique
Direct evaluation
Deterministic criteria-based
evaluation
Stochastic criteria-based
evaluation
Deterministic planning
Stochastic planning
Table 1 provides an overview of
some decision techniques according to
this classification and also indicates the
type of decision where the techniques
are applicable.
Success Factors and Decision

Making
Unfortunately, there is neither a universal recipe for achieving project
success, nor a universally valid definition of what a successful project looks
like. As Pinto and Slevin (1988, p. 67)
observed: There are few topics in the
12
Technique
Decision Type
Check list
Authorization
Scoring board
Selection
Pairwise comparison
Selection
Analytical Hierarch Process
Selection
Choosing By Advantages
Selection
Profitability analysis
Authorization
Expected value concept
Selection
Decision trees
Selection
Risk-based profitability analysis
Authorization
Decision gates
Authorization
WBS
Plan
Cost estimation
Plan
Scheduling
Plan
Critical chain
Plan
Cost/time tradeoff
Plan
Resource leveling and allocation
Plan
Profitability sensitivity analysis
Selection
Cause and effect diagram
Selection
Red-light/green-light rating
Selection
Risk assessment matrix
Selection
Urgency assessment
Selection
Risk sensitivity analysis
Selection
Failure mode effect analysis
Selection
Expected monetary value
Selection
Risk simulation
Selection
GERT and Q-GERT
Plan/Selection
Risk response planning
Plan
PERT
Plan
Table 1: Decision techniques (Rolstads, Pinto, etal., 2014, p. 85).
field of project management that are so

frequently discussed and yet so rarely
agreed upon as the notion of project
success. Projects are always exploring
new territories in which the resolution
of some critical issues may simply cause
others to pop up; thus, the array of
success factors is dynamic and tends
to vary over the projects life cycle and
between different projects.
It is first important to distinguish
between the ideas of project success
and project management success. For
example, it is critical to define how
the project is intended to deliver stakeholder value. As Cooke-Davies (2002)
observed, project management success
can be measured against traditional
performance gauges (i.e., time, cost,
quality, and stakeholder satisfaction).
We will discuss these ideas in more
detail below. Project success, on the
other hand, is measured against the
overall objectives of the project. This
distinction is important because many
projects, although viewed as successful
in the broader sense, do not look very
much like project management success
stories. The Sydney Opera House, for
example, overran its initial budget by
a factor of 14 and ran 15 years behind
schedule, experiencing numerous construction problems and setbacks (Kharbanda & Pinto, 1996). Nonetheless, it is
still proudly held up as an engineering
masterpiece and the architectural highlight of Sydney Harbor.
The above discussion illustrates the
need to distinguish between process
and outcome models of success factors.
Project success is routinely measured
through company-specific key performance indicators (KPIs), which serve
as our baseline for assessment of the
viability of project performance. Did
the project yield 15% return on investment? Was the project completed to
performance standards or predetermined schedule or budget constraints?
Answers to KPIs such as these allow us
to make a reasonable determination of
the success and value of the project. On
the other hand, project management
success is linked to process models

of critical success factors that identify
those managerial actions that can go far
in setting the right conditions in which
a project team can constructively perform its tasks and increase the likelihood of successful project outcomes.
So, for example, taking one of Pinto
and Slevins (1988) original 10 project
critical success factorstop management supporttheir findings suggest
that the greater the degree to which
members of top management take an
interest in the project and support it
with personal social capital (sponsorship) or resources (people and money),
the greater the likelihood that the project will succeed.
Nearly three decades of work on
project success, critical success factors, and various assessment models for
project performance have contributed
to a wealth of information and perspectives on this phenomenon. Although
it is impossible to fully summarize the
knowledge of the field, we can touch
on the most important perspectives for
academics and practitioners who want
to get the most out of this information.
Let us consider the summary of project
success made by De Wit (1988), Shenhar and Dvir (2007), and Cooke-Davies
(2004):
1. Project Management SuccessWas the
project done right? The most common
means for assessing the success of a
project is to focus on the efficiency with
which it was completed. This is the
area to which the bulk of practitioner
literature devotes its attention; that is,
making sure that the project comes in
on or near budget and schedule, while
performing with an acceptable degree
of functionality (quality). This assessment of success closely conforms to
the original triple-constraint ideas we
started with; however, conceptualization is still useful for several reasons.
First, it adheres to the idea that projects
in many organizations still represent
discrete, one-off ventures that have to
be managed in their own right; that
is, there is no need to link them to

broader portfolios of projects or higher
order programs. When a company is
confronted with the need to manage a
particular event, it can gain considerable advantage from focusing exclusively on actions oriented toward these
criteria. Second, this approach enables
organizations to capture data on projects as they are completed and allows
them to analyze performance historically, across multiple projects. In this
way, it is possible to determine what is
working and where the organization
suffers from systematic problems (e.g.,
if project after project comes in over
budget, this may point to some embedded flaws in the planning process, our
cost estimation methods, or project
control systems). Thus, the first step in
our assessment of project management
efficiency is understanding success as
a function of organizational practices.
2. Project SuccessWas the right project
done? A recurring theme in modern
project management is the notion
of value. Does the value now provided by the project for the owner
justify its undertaking? Treating projects from the perspective of effectiveness (as opposed to internal
efficiency) broadens and enhances
our understanding of our intentions when deciding to undertake a
project. Projects, of course, are not
initiated without regard for corporate goals, strategies, and the bottom line. The right project criterion
allows the organization to consider
additional concepts of value management, risk assessment, and the
corporate benefits of the project. In
effect, when we consider if the right
project is being initiated, projects are
allowed to take on a broader, strategic
role in the organization. The manner of project selection and evaluation in many organizations further
demonstrates the importance of the
effectiveness criterion. In such circumstances, project alternatives are
evaluated through financial modeling (such as net present value) and
13
PAPERS
market research (customer assessment), bringing maximum clarity to

the selection of the right projects.
In other words, project success must
incorporate this idea of not simply
doing the project right but also
doing the right project.
3. Ongoing Project SuccessConsistently
pursuing the right projects and doing
them right, time after time. A newer
feature of assessing project success has
been to move the focus further up the
corporate ladder, looking at projects
not simply as discrete undertakings but
also examining an organizations project portfolio and how they are selected
and managed in a unified, holistic way.
When our conception of project success combines efficiency and effectiveness over extended periods of time, our
understanding of project management
deepens to include other key elements:
organizational learning and knowledge
management (passing project wisdom down through the organization),
as well as new methods and models
that allow organizations to systematize
their project management processes.
For example, initiatives such as gated
review processes and project management offices are efforts made to embed
correct project management methodology throughout an organization.
Just as such distinctions have been
made between the ideas of project success and project management success,
it is necessary to consider a similar
dichotomy as it relates to the notion of
successful decision making in projects.
That is, we can examine ex post, outcome decisions to assess their success
in terms of how well they conformed
to their original intention; that is, did
enacting a particular decision solve the
target problem? Alternatively, we can
assess decision making as an enacted
process; in other words, was decision
making done correctly; that is, did the
decision-making process itself follow
required guidelines or standards that we
have a priori determined to be valid for
problem recognition and solution? For
14
example, stage-gate reviews (Cooper,

Edgett, & Kleinschmidt, 2001) would
be just such a decision-making process
that has been argued to lead to successful outcomes. In gated reviews, critical
success factors relate to the decision
process itself as a means for assessment.
An alternative example of poorly
conceived decision making is demonstrated through the work of Flyvbjerg
and associates (Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius,
& Rothengatter, 2003; Flyvbjerg, 2012;
Pinto, 2013), who identified a number of
decision pathologies in project selection and planning. Their arguments,
that many project initiation and planning decisions are a product of fallacious reasoning, optimism bias, and
strategic misrepresentation reflects
on a similar flawed decision-making
process with predictable outcomes for
the final (and rarely well-completed)
project. That is, when critical decisionmaking success factors are ignored or
downplayed, the results have a significantly negative effect on the viability
of successful project outcomes. As a
result, the idea of the project decision
chain is predicated on the viability of a
decision-making process that takes into
consideration both the process for how
to most effectively and efficiently derive
workable decisions as well as a means
for assessing the decisions themselves,
taking corrective action, and employing
a learning methodology.

The concept of supply chain management is well understood in the
manufacturing sector. Supply chain
management is the process of managing
relationships, information, and materials flow across enterprise borders to
deliver enhanced customer service and
economic value (by implementing)
a specific ordering of work activities
across time and place, with a beginning, an end, clearly identified inputs
and outputs, and a structure of action
(Mentzer, 2001). Simply defined, in the
context of a manufacturing environment, supply chain management is the
process of integrating the flow of raw

materials from the suppliers to the final
delivery of the finished product to the
end-customer (Gourdin, 2001). The
purpose of supply chain management
is to have an integrated view on how
materials and products flow from different suppliers to the manufacturer
and to the final customer in order to
make a decision to find optimal solutions that are competitive. There are
direct similarities between supply chain
management, project management,
and the decision-making process. Just
like supply chain management, project
management and decision making are
also structured processes of managing
workflow in a predetermined sequence
across time and place, and have a definite beginning, end, and specific outcomes (Henrie, 2007). The supply chain
is often referred to as a value chain, as
value is added as the product/services
progress through each phase of the supply chain.
We would like to extend this concept of adding value to decision making
in projects. We will call the sequence
of decisions made during the various stages of a capital value process, a
project decision chain. In this decision
chain, decisions made in each phase
of the actual life cycle (business, project, operation) should add value to the
overall project. In other words, the decisions made during each phase should
contribute to the projects three key performance indicators (KPIs) of reducing
cost, on-time completion, and ensuring
project performance.
The building block in a project
decision chain will be a primitive element, shown in Figure 4. The element
is triggered by an authorization decision shown as a decision gate in the
figure. The element includes work to
be performed, which involves a selection of work process and the execution
of a task. The process selection can be
regarded as a choice between several
alternatives; in our terminology, that
is a selection decision. The execution
of the task is based on a plan, which
DG
tion). Figure 5 shows an example of the

project cycle.
Each task in the primitive element
can in itself contain subtasks, which in
turn will comprise new primitive elements. These may be bound together
in a network and may exist at varying
levels of detail in accordance with a
WBS. An example of the conceptualization phase of the project cycle is shown
in Figure 6.
The project decision chain and the
more detailed project activity network
express the ordered sequence of events
on a timeline. This is one aspect of time.
The other aspect of time is expressed by
the GRAI grid, where decision making
of planning and control is hierarchically
decomposed into levels of varying horizons and time periods. The primitive
element can therefore also be represented by a grid for each of the phases
of the project cycle, as illustrated in
Figure 7. The overall management of
the decision chain is a strategic decision element above the project decision
chain (Wortmann etal., 1997).
Thus, we have structured the decisions according to two aspects of time:
Authorization decision
Alt. A
Process selection
(Selection decision)
Alt. B
Alt. C
Task execution
(Plan decision)
Execution
Figure 4: Primitive element in a project

decision chain.
includes both a schedule and a budget

based on the synchronization of products (i.e., documents and materials
and resources). It also includes adjustments of the plan based on feedback
from the execution. This is what we
have referred to as a plan decision.
The primitive decision element thus
involves all the three types of decisions
discussed earlier.
The task to be executed will require
resources and will be subject to constraints. Resources can be:
Personnel
Materials
Equipment
Money
Horizontala chain of primitive elements

Verticalprimitive elements in a decision cycle
Constraints can be:

Time
Precedence relations
Limited resources
We will now concentrate on the

project cycle, which has four distinct
phases: conceptualization, planning,
execution, and termination (see
Figure1). We will discuss the sequence
The primitive elements can be fitted into the capital value process for
each of the three cycles indicated in
Figure 1 (business, project, and opera-
of decisions made during these various phases of the project cycle in more
detail in the next section.
The project conceptualization
phase includes decisions on all activities, beginning with origination of the
project idea to the final decision on
financing the project. In this phase, one
of the major decisions is selecting a subset of projects (project portfolio) from a
variety of available projects. This is an
inherently complex problem, because
the project selection decision should
consider multiple and often conflicting objectives. A number of decisionmaking tools, including checklists;
weighted scoring models; Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP); Choosing
By Advantages (CBA); profile models;
and financial models, such as net present value analysis and internal rate of
return can be used to make project
screening and selection decisions. During the initial stages of the project life
cycle, however, when there is significant
uncertainty about the future, heuristic
decision rules can be the most useful
tools to making reasonably sound decisions (Williams & Samset, 2010).
The underlying theme behind a
project decision chain is that decisions made about the project concept are linked to the decisions to be
made during all subsequent phases
of the product cycle. Therefore, during the project planning phase, all
the activities relating to the project
workbroadly outlined in the scope
of work specified during the conceptualization stagemust be spelled out
Project cycle
DG
DG
Conceptualization
DG
Planning
DG
Execution
Termination
Process
selection
Process
selection
Process
selection
Process
selection
Task
execution
Task
execution
Task
execution
Task
execution
Figure 5: Project decision chain.
15
PAPERS
in detail and properly scheduled and

sequenced. Given that projects operate in an environment of uncertainty,
there is always a risk that a project can
run into trouble; therefore, an important decision is to determine a risk
management strategy that will be used
to identify, analyze, and respond to
risk factors throughout the project life
cycle. A variety of charting and network
analysis techniques are used during
this phase to aid the decision maker
in coming up with a sound project
schedule. The outcome of all these
decisions is a well-integrated project
plan that has clearly defined goals and

objectives, scope of the project, a work
breakdown structure, a logical project
network and schedule, a feasible project budget, clearly defined project team
responsibilities, resources required,
and a risk management strategy.
Once the project plan is in place
the next phase of decisions focuses on
executing the project plan. It is during
this phase that the actual work of the
project as laid out in the project plan
is performed. It is also the stage in the
project life cycle where the majority of
resources allocated to the project are
Conceptualization
Primitive
element
Primitive
element
Primitive
element
Primitive
element
Primitive
element
Primitive
element
Primitive
element
Figure 6: Network of decision elements in a project decision chain element.
Function
Horizon
Period
To manage
products
To plan
consumed. All of the decisions in this

phase focus on monitoring and controlling project progress to ensure the
technical requirements, budgetary, and
schedule constraints established in the
project plan are met. In addition, decisions are made to ensure the effective
and efficient management of resources.
To facilitate decision making in the
project execution phase, several project
control techniques, including S-curves,
milestone analysis, Gantt charts, and
Earned Value Analysis (EVA) are used.
Similarly, techniques such as resource
loading and resource leveling are used
to ensure project resources are effectively utilized.
Project closeout or termination
occurs when the project is stopped
due to its successful (or unsuccessful)
conclusion. Assuming successful project conclusion, decisions made during this phase focus on the process of
transferring the completed project to
the customer and conducting the final
phase-out activities. In addition, decisions have to be made on assigning the
current project team members to new
projects, and how to disperse the material assets deployed in the completed
project. Checklists are useful tools to
ensure that all final project close-out
activities are completed.
To manage
resources
H=
P=
H=
P=
Function
Horizon
Period
To manage
products
To plan
To manage
resources
Function
Horizon
Period
H=
P=
H=
P=
H=
P=
H=
P=
Figure 7: Project decision chain management structure.
16
To manage
products
To plan
To manage
resources
Conclusion
The art of decision making is pivotal
to effective project management. During every stage of the project life cycle,
project managers face a huge array
of choices, such as which supplier to
use to improve the quality of the new
product to be developed, whether the
project work should be done in-house
or outsourced, and so forth (Intaver
Institute, 2014). Furthermore, elements
of decision analysis such as analysis of
potential alternatives and assessment
of project risk are critical during each
stage of the project life cycle. A wellestablished decision analysis process
integrated into the overall project management process is vital for improving
project performance. In this article, we
have proposed a project decision chain
framework (similar to a supply chain)
that will ensure that decisions made at
each stage of the project life cycle add
value to overall project performance.
References
Abbasianjahromi, H., Rajaie, H.,
Shakeri, E., & Chokan, F. (2014). A new
decision making model for subcontractor
selection and its order allocation. Project
Management Journal, 45(1), 5566.
Al-Harbi, K. M. A. (2001). Application
of the AHP in project management. International Journal of Project
Management, 19(1), 1927.
Arroyo, P. (2014). Exploring decisionmaking for sustainable design in commercial buildings. Berkeley: University of
California, Berkeley.
Barton, J. A., & Love, D. M. (2000).
Design decision chains as a basis for
design analysis. Journal of Engineering
Design, 11(3), 283297.
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(S1), S97S110.
Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2014).
Managing structural and dynamic
complexity: Atale of two projects. Project

Management Journal, 45(4), 2138.
Canils, M. C. J., & Bakens, R. J. J. M.
(2012). The effects of project management information systems on decision
making in a multi project environment. International Journal of Project
Management, 30(2), 162175.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The real
success factors in projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 20(3),
185190.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2004). Project success.
In P. W. G. Morris & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The
Wiley guide to managing projects (pp.
99122). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., &
Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001). Portfolio
management for new products (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Perseus.
De Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of
project success. International Journal of
Project Management, 6(3), 164170.
Dewey, J. (1978). How we think. In
J.A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works:
18991924, Vol 6, 19101911 (pp. 177
356). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Divekar, A. A., Bangal, S., & Sumangala,
D. (2012). The study of prescriptive and
descriptive models of decision making. International Journal of Advvanced
Research in Artificial Intelligence, 1(1),
7174.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2012). Over budget, over

time, over and over again: Managing
major projects. In P. W. G. Morris, J. K.
Pinto, & J. Sderlund (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of project management
(pp.321344). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., &
Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects
and risk: An anatomy of ambition.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Flp, J. (2005). Introduction to decision making methods. [Online] Retrieved
fromhttp://academic.evergreen.edu
/projects/bdei/documents
/decisionmakingmethods.pdf
Gidel, T., Gautier, R., & Duchamp, R.
(2005). Decision-making framework
methodology: An original approach to
project risk management in new product
design. Journal of Engineering Design,
16(1), 123.
Gourdin, K. N. (2001). Global logistics
management: A competitive advantage
for the new millennium. Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Grant, E. W., Grant, I., & Leavenworth,R.
(1990). Principles of engineering economic (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Henrie, M. (2007). Project management:
The supply chain view. Retrieved from
http://www.asapm.org/asapmag
/articles/PM_WorldView.pdf
Doumeingts, G. (1984). Mthode de

conception des systmes de Productique.
Bordeaux, France: Laboratoire GRAI,
Universit de Bourdeaux I.
Intaver Institute. (2014). Project decision

analysis process. Retrieved from http://
www.intaver.com/Articles/Article
_ProjectDecisionAnalysis.pdf
Drucker, P. (1955). The practice of

management. London, England:
Heinemann.
Karim, A. J. (2011). Project management

information systems (PMIS) factors:
Anempirical study of their impact on
project management decision making (PMDM) performance. Research
Journalof Economics, Business and ICT,
2, 2277.
Figueira, J., & Roy, B. (2002).

Determining the weights of criteria in the
ELECTRE type methods with a revised
Simos procedure. European Journal of
Operational Research, 139(2), 317326.
Fischer, M., & Adams, H. (2011).
Engineering-based decisions in construction. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 137(10),
751754.
Karni, R., & Kaner, M. (2005). Agile

knowledge-based decision making with
application to project management. In
K. D. Althoff (Ed.), Proceeding WM2005,
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
(LNCS) 3782, Proceedings of the Third
17
PAPERS
Biennial Conference on Professional

Management (pp. 400408). Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer-Verlag Berlin.
Keeney, R. L. (1996). Value-focused
thinking: A path to creative decision making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Khalili-Damghani, K., & Tavana, M.
(2014). A comprehensive framework for
sustainable project portfolio, selection
based on structural equation modeling. Project Management Journal, 45(2),
8397.
Kharbanda, O. P., & Pinto, J. K. (1996).
What made Gertie Gallup? Lessons
from project failures. New York, NY: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Liang, T. F. (2009). Application of fuzzy
sets to multi-objective project management decisions. International Journal of
General Systems, 38(3), 311330.
Mafakheri, F., Nasiri, F., & Mousavi, M.
(2008). Project agility assessment: An
integrated decision analysis approach.
Production Planning & Control, 19(6),
567576.
techniques. Project Management Journal,

19(1), 6772.
Project Management Journal, 42(2),

8193.
Ridgway, K. (1992). Analysis of decision

centres and information flow in project
management. International Journal of
Project Management, 10(3), 145152.
Suhr, J. (1999). The choosing by advantages decision making system. Westport,

CT: Quorum Books.
Rolstads, A., Hetland, P. W., Jergeas,

G., & Westney, R. (2011). Risk navigation strategies for major capital projects: Beyond the myth of predictability.
London, England: Springer.
Rolstads, A., Pinto, J. K., Falster, P., &
Venkataraman, R. (2014). Decision making in project management. Trondheim,
Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
Rolstads, A., Tommelein, I.,
Schiefloe, P. M., & Ballard, G. (2014).
Understanding project success
through analysis of project management approach. International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business, 7(4),
638660.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process priority setting, resource
allocation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
International.
Marques, G., Gourc, D., & Lauras,M.

(2010). Multi-criteria performance
analysis for decision making in
projectmanagement. International
Journal ofProject Management, 29(8),
10571069.
Schiefloe, P. M. (2011). Mennesker

og samfunn. Bergen, Norway:
Fagbokforlaget.
Mentzer, J. T. (2001). Supply chain management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of

management decision. New York, NY:
Harper and Row.
Meyer, W. G. (2014). The effect of optimism bias on the decision to terminate

failing projects. Project Management
Journal, 45(4), 720.
Mota, C. M. M., Almeida, A. T., &
Alencar, L. H. (2009). A multiple
criteria decision model for assigning
priorities to activities in project management. International Journal of Project
Management, 27(2), 175181.
Shenhar, A., & Dvir, D. (2007).

Reinventing project management. Boston,
MA: Havard Business School Press.
Sobek, D. K., Ward, A. C., & Liker,J.K.

(1999). Toyotas principles of setbased concurrent engineering. Sloan
Management Review, 40(2), 6783.
Sderlund, J. (2010). Pluralism in project
management: Navigating the crossroads
of specialization and fragmentation.
International Journal of Management
Reviews, 13, 153176.
Pinto, J. K. (2013). Lies, damned lies,

and project plans: Recurring human
errors that can ruin the project planning process. Business Horizons, 56(5),
643653.
Steffens, W., Martinsuo, M., & Artto,K.

(2007). Change decisions in product
development projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 25(7),
702713.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Project

success: Definitions and measurement
Strang, K. D. (2010). Portfolio selection methodology for a nuclear project.
18
Wellington, A. M. (1887). The Economic

Theory of Railway Location (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Williams, T., & Samset, K. (2010). Issues
in front-end decision making in project.
Project Management Journal, 41(2), 112.
Wortmann, J. C., Muntslag, D. R., &
Timmermans, P. J. M. (1997). Customerdriven manufacturing. London, England:
Chapman & Hall.
Asbjrn Rolstads is Vice Dean for research at
the Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology
and a Professor of Production and Quality Engineering
at the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim, Norway. He has more than 30
years of experience in education, research, and consulting in project management. His current research
focuses on success factors, project risk management,
global projects, and project management of research.
He has previous research experience in a range of
fields, including manufacturing technology, logistics,
and productivity and has published more than 290
articles and 13 books. He is past president of the
Norwegian Academy of Technological Sciences and is
a member of both the Royal Norwegian Society of
Sciences and Letters and the Royal Swedish Academy
of Engineering Sciences. He is founding editor of the
International Journal of Production Planning and
Control, and is past president of the International
Federation for Information Processing. He has
servedfor five years on the PMI Member
AdvisoryGroup for Standards. He can be contacted
atasbjorn.rolstadas@ntnu.no.
Jeffrey K. Pinto is the Andrew Morrow and
Elizabeth Lee Black Chair of Management of
Technology in the Sam and Irene Black School of
Business, the Behrend College, Penn State University,
Erie, Pennsylvania, USA. He is the lead faculty member for Penn States Master of Project Management
program. Dr. Pinto is the author or editor of 29 books
and over 140 scientific papers in a variety of academic
and practitioner publications. Dr. Pintos work has
been translated into nine languages, and he has consulted widely in the United States and Europe on a
range of topics, including project management,
newproduct development, information system implementation, organization development, leadership, and

conflict resolution. Dr. Pinto served as Editor of Project
Management Journal from 1990 to 1996 and is a
two-time recipient of the Distinguished Contribution
Award from the Project Management Institute (1997,
2001) for outstanding service to the project management profession. He received PMIs Research
Achievement Award in 2009 for outstanding contributions to project management research. His bestselling
college textbook, Project Management: Achieving
Competitive Advantage (Prentice-Hall), is currently in
its fourth edition. Dr. Pinto received his MBA and PhD
degrees from the Katz Graduate School of Business at
the University of Pittsburgh. He can be contacted at
jkp4@psu.edu.
Peter Falster received his Masters in Electric
Power Engineering from Technical University of
Denmark, Lyngy, Denmark. At the same university, he
completed a PhD in Systems Science with
specialization in Production Planning and Scheduling.

His research interests are in systems science and
engineering, logic and array theory, logistics and supply chains, project management, and IT. His research
has been published in journals including Production
Planning and Control, Journal of the Franklin Institute,
Matrix and Tensor Quarterly, Lecture Notes in Control
and Information Sciences, Computers in Industry,
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing Systems, and
Mathematics and Computers in Simulation. He is
Professor Emeritus in the Department of Applied
Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical
University of Denmark. He is Visiting Professor at the
Department of Production and Quality Engineering,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Trondheim, Norway. He can be contacted at
petfa@dtu.dk.
Ray Venkataraman is Professor of Project and
Supply Chain Management in the Sam and Irene
Black School of Business at Penn State Erie, Erie,
Pennsylvania, USA. He received his PhD in

Management Science from the Illinois Institute of
Technology, after earning his bachelors degree in
chemistry from the University of Madras, India, an
MBA in information systems, and a masters degree in
accounting from DePaul University, Chicago. Dr.
Venkataraman has published in POMS, The
International Journal of Production Research, Omega,
International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Production Planning and Control,
Production and Inventory Management, The
International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, and other journals. He also published a
book entitled Cost and Value Management in Projects
and several book chapters. His current research interests are in the areas ofsupply chain and
sustainability in project management. He has also
served as a member of the editorial review boards of
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
Journal and the POMS Journal. He can be contacted
at rrv2@psu.edu.
19

Project Decision Chain

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Project Decision Chain

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PAPERS