Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research

Vol. 63, November 2004, pp 888-896

AHP-based formal system for R&D project evaluation

S Suresh Kumar
Scientist and Head, Planning and Evaluation Group, Regional Research Laboratory (CSIR), Trivandrum
Received 19 March 2004; accepted 23 July 2004
The paper dwells on a judgement model for R&D project evaluation using multifactor criteria based on hierarchic
considerations. The idea is to employ formal tools in quantification of subjective evaluations where expert judgement is
involved. Comparative evaluations on a priority scale are converted to quantities using the eigen vector concept. This is also
the essence of the Analytic Hierarchic Process (AHP) of Satty [Satty T L, The analytic hierarchic process (Mc Graw Hill,
New York) 1980] which as a technique is employed for R&D project evaluation. It is argued that AHP is more effective
than scoring charts and utility models in priority setting based on judgemental evaluation through peer rating.
Keywords: R&D project evaluation, Priority setting, Judgemental models, Analytic hierarchic process, Peer rating

Introduction
A public funded research laboratory in a
developing country like India faces problems with
respect to allocation of scarce resources from
Government on the large portfolio of projects. Some
of these projects are contractual in nature with part of
the funds for the same sourced as grants from
departmental agencies or Government institutions. In
certain cases private or public sector industries may
sponsor research by providing entire cost for the
project. Even in such cases the project cost projection,
particularly in respect of manpower costs are usually
on the lower side on account of the exigencies of the
situations and expectations in industry circles which
make it contingent on public funded research entities
to make subsidized projections. Thus, a Government
research laboratory in India may have a portfolio
consisting of : (i) In-house projects, (ii) Grant-in-aid
projects, and (iii) Sponsored research. In-house
projects are fully funded by the research institutes
through Central Government funds since they are of a
basic nature. Industry may not fund such programmes.
Nevertheless institutions need to undertake basic
research for expertise development and catching up
with scientific progress in the field elsewhere. This
situation calls for definite criteria for giving priority
to the projects so as to facilitate resource allocations.
Certain well-defined criteria are discernible in this
context. These are applicable to the wide spectrum of
projects undertaken and could be categorized as: (i)
Organizational, (ii) Technical, (iii) Strategic, and (iv)

Financial. With respect to the different types of

projects one should put appropriate grading or
weightages on these factors through a process that
eliminates subjectivity in judgement to the extent
possible. Scoring charts are most simple to use but the
reliability is in question being subjected to
judgenmental errors in grading.
Other quantification techniques used are
econometric
modeling,
discounted
cash
flow/NPV/IRR calculation, and linear programming
methods (non-linear methods). These require more
precise data on project benefits and quantifiable
socio-economic returns. This is often too premature to
hazard at the R&D stage on account of the relative
higher levels of uncertainties involved in respect of
output measures. Hence, a weighed multiple criteria
method was felt to be most suited to the purpose since
it helps to overcome the judgemental errors through a
systematic methodology1.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has a
comprehensively structured logical framework to
analyze the project in the light of both qualitative and
quantitative information. The knowledge of experts in
subjective judgement is transformed in to quantitative
data2.
Perceived Problems
Like in any other research organization the
management of the institute (under study) faces
crucial decision problems in the selection and ranking
of R&D projects.

SURESH KUMAR: AHP-BASED FORMAL SYSTEM FOR R&D PROJECT EVALUATION

The first problem is that of selecting the most

promising project for ensuring the continuation of
organizations operations. The number of projects put
forward for consideration every year is usually far in
excess of the number possible to undertake within the
purview of the organizations available resources.
Consequently the problem arises in selecting those
projects which are likely to be useful to the future
viability of the organization. The sources for project
proposals are both internal as well as external.
The management needed a refined and structured
procedure to assist the decision making on the issues
mentioned above to account for all the diverse and
diffused parameters. The system had to fit within the
existing group decision-making process. A decision
model was to be developed to assist in project
selection and prioritization decisions, along with a
conceptual, potential measuring instrument for use by
the project management committee.
Methods and Models for Evaluation of R&D Projects
During the last quarter of twentieth century,
management scientists have expended considerable
efforts in developing various quantitative and
qualitative techniques for R&D management, with
special emphasis on project management and
particularly on the aspect of priority setting based on
multiple criteria. The R&D project selection and
prioritization are concerned with the allocation of
organizational resources such as, money, skills, and
facilities, to a set of proposals for scientific R&D. The
decision is important because it may entail a
considerable investment commitment. In addition the
decision will often have a significant impact on the
future financial position and viability of the
organization. At the same time, there are typically
more projects for R&D than the available resources
can support. There are also many inherent
uncertainties in attempting to predict project results.
For these reasons, among others, it is difficult to
structure the alternatives such that an optimal may
be made.
Many studies were made earlier and formal project
selection methods proposed 1,3-5. These methods could
be classified into three types according to the basic
approach used: Decision Theory approach, the
Economic Analysis approach and the Operational
Research approach. Each type of approach has certain
specific features.
The Decision Theory approach suggests certain
factors in terms of which a project proposal might be

889

evaluated and derives a scoring model, whereby a

rating on an empirical scale is made for each factor
considered, and these ratings are combined either by
multiplication or as a weighted average or according
to heuristic rules to derive a numerical score for each
project proposal. The projects then selected are those
with the highest scores the number of projects
selected being determined by the constraint of the
total available budget. The Decision Theory models
mostly rely on the subjective or qualitative input
variables.
The Economic Analysis approach is based on a
detailed forecast of the profitability of each project
proposal in terms of the investment required and the
expected revenue resulting from it. The method for
indicating the profitability of a proposal usually
makes use of discounted cash flows. The Economic
Analysis approach thus assumes that the profit
objective is the only objective to be considered in
evaluating project proposals and it is dependent on the
ability to make a realistic estimate of the anticipated
amount of investment required by the project and the
revenue expected as a result . For obtaining the
information for a benefit cost analysis often presents
problems when managers are asked to express their
feelings about non-economic factors in money terms.
The Operations Research approach is characterized
by the use of mathematical programming techniques
to optimize the selection of projects by maximizing
the total value of the project proposals within the
constraints of the total budget and other resources
available, the value of each proposal being measured
in terms of the financial worth of the projects, which
may or may not be discounted. Recently, both binary
(0-1) integer and non-liner goal programming
formulations have been applied to project selection.
Their major improvement over standard 0-1 integer
programming techniques is the ability to consider
several criteria within the objective function.
However, Linear Programming (LP) provides no
methods for ensuring that the goals selected
adequately reflect the organizational factors related to
the decision 6.
Applicability of the Methods
The quantitative models for project selection and
resource allocation appear to the incomplete in the
sense that they do not include all the important,
relevant aspects of the R&D environments. The
problem is characterized by multiple criteria, many of
which are not easily quantified, and typical

890

J SCI IND RES VOL 63 NOVEMBER 2004

approaches to quantify subjective preferences are far

from satisfactory. The R&D process is highly
uncertain and unpredictable also. As a result,
managers are skeptical of the validity of the numerous
data elements, of the various difficult to understand
model forms, and of the subsequent allocation
recommendations. The general managerial attitude
appears to be that qualitative models with their
subjective judgments as inputs can assist in the
decision making of routine predictable and
unpredictable activities3.
Another form of formal project review method
involves completion of a checklist or profile chart.
Criteria are listed which are believed to be important
factors in determining the eventual success or failure
of the R&D effort. All projects are then subjectively
related on the basis of each criterion listed.
The checklist methodology lends itself rapidly to
types of information that often prove nearly
impossible to conclude in other quantitative model
constructions involving non-economic factors such as,
social impacts and environmental concerns.
Checklists also have certain useful diagnostic
properties not found in more general decision models.
Particular weaknesses of individual projects are
quickly identified by their poor rating on certain
criteria. While the simplicity of the approach may be
very appealing, it can be ineffective in complex
problems. Although many important factors may be
included in a checklist, the relevance or importance of
each individual factor is left indeterminate.
Checklist or profile charts for different projects are
difficult to compare because individual criteria are not
weighed. Scoring models attempt to remedy this
problem by assigning weights to individual criteria
and summarizing the results as a single project score.
To arrive at a set of criteria weights, it is necessary to
extract preference functions from the decision makers.
Several methods have been developed for deriving
criteria weights. These range from simple rank
ordering of criteria to various types of utility
functions7.
Scoring models retain the advantages of the
checklists and profile charts in terms of their ability to
consider a wide range of economic as well as noneconomic criteria. In addition, scoring models make it
possible to provide a single number for evaluation of
each project. The principal shortcoming of the
approach is that the projects score obtained is
dimensionless, which makes its use in some situations

difficult as opposed to economic or optimization

models.
Multiple criteria methods on scoring models
involve the identification and weighting of several
criteria to allow research topics to be ranked on the
basis of a composite score. In qualitative multiplecriteria methods, ranking is facilitated by peer group
evaluation and rating. Scoring methods are
particularly useful when dealing with non- economic
criteria and disparate as well as diffuse objective.
Weighted criteria methods are also most suited to exante evaluation as in project selection and prioritysetting which is the aim of this study. Here the
evaluator is looking at future research operations and
the potential benefits they may induce in a semiquantitative manner through peer ratings of an
essentially qualitative criteria8.
Analysis of the Problem and Selection of Methodology
A study about the characteristics and type of the
projects carried out in the institute revealed their
complex nature and the uncertainty associated with
them. Many facets of the research projects in the
laboratory are rather vague and are difficult to
formalize and evaluate on an objective basis. It is not
easy to define such output measures and progress
markers as interim objectives, payoffs, and project
costs in advance. Even when the measures are defined
the actual outputs are difficult to estimate. Frequently
the variance between estimate and achievement is
very large, if it were not, the project can hardly be
considered as research. This is not simply a matter of
forecasting error. Often the estimator cannot even
know what methods will be used to reach the research
goal. Information about the approach to the goal in
most cases is subjective in comparision, e.g. with
information about an engineering project.
The assumptions in many R&D project
management models with the Economic Analysis and
Operations Research approach are that the
profitability is the main criterion to be considered in
evaluating a given project. This does not appear to
represent all aspects of the practical situation,
although evidently this does represent the overall
objective against which the achievement of the output
of the total R&D activity might be measured. There
are many other factors influencing the decisions
regarding the R&D project. The factors are: strategic,
environmental, technological, operational, behavioral,
and organizational. As revealed by the study of the
characteristics of the organization and its objectives, it

SURESH KUMAR: AHP-BASED FORMAL SYSTEM FOR R&D PROJECT EVALUATION

891

Table 1The fundamental AHP judgement scale

Intensity of
importance on a
numerical scale

Definition

Explanation

1
3

Equal importance
Moderate importance of one over another

5
7

Strong importance
Very strong importance

Extreme importance

2,4,6,8

Intermediate values between two adjacent

judgements
If activity i has one of the above numbers
assigned to it when compared with activity,
j then, j has the reciprocal value when
compared with i

Two factors contribute equally to the objective

Experience and judgement moderately favor
one over the other
One activity strongly over another
An activity strongly favored and its dominance
demonstrated in practice
The evidence favoring one over another is of
the highest order of affirmation
When compromise is needed

Reciprocals

was concluded that the supporting tools for the project

selection and ranking decision-making in the
organization must be of a subjective basis. The
systematic organization of subjective information on
research decisions was proposed for improving the
control of the research programs in the institute.
Several methods and models for organizing and
processing subjective information on multicriteria
decision making such as checklists and straight
forward point allocation weighted average utility
9
functions were considered and the Analytic
Hierarchy Process developed by Saaty2 is found to be
the most promising method as the basis to make the
framework for the system10,11.
Analytic Hierarchy Process
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed
by Saaty2, allows the decision makers to visually
structure a complex problem in the form of a
hierarchy having at least two levels; objectives
(criteria for evaluation) and activities (products and
courses of actions). Each factor or alternative on a
given level can be identified and evaluated with
respect to other related factor. This ability to structure
a complex problem and then focus attention on
specific components broadens ones decisionmaking
capabilities. Another advantage of AHP is its
simplicity, in comparing five conceptually different
approaches for determining weights in utility models,
Shoemaker and Waid10 have found that their subjects
perceived AHP as the easiest method and the one
whose results were most trustworthy. Since 1975,
AHP has been applied in various priority setting and

resource allocation problems in marketing electric

power allocation, conflict resolution, transportation
planning, and new product development among
others9.
Application of the AHP requires that the problem
structure is first disaggregated into a multilevel
hierarchy, where each criterion or alternative on a
given level is one of the same rough magnitude or
importance, and is thought to influence the next
higher level. The method centers on determining
weights or priorities of a set of criteria in one level of
the problem to the next level just above. By repeating
this process level by level the matrices summarizing
the priorities between levels can be multiplied for
determining the priorities of the alternatives at the
lowest level according to their influence on the
overall goal or focus of the hierarchy.
The method of determining the priorities on a given
level L=1 to each criteria on the next higher level up
is based on a set of pair-wise comparisons. The
resulting matrix is a square, positive, reciprocal
matrix, i.e., a[ij] = a[ij] - 1 > 0, where a[ij] represents the
comparison of the strength of alternative i to
alternative j in influencing some stated factor. A
fundamental scale consisting of verbal judgements
ranging from equal to extreme is used to make the
comparisons and it is given in Table 1. This scale has
been validated for effectiveness, not only in many
applications by many people, but also through
theoretical comparisons with a large number of other
scales2. The largest eigen value of the pair-wise
comparison matrix is computed, and its associated
eigenvector represents priority (ranking).

892

J SCI IND RES VOL 63 NOVEMBER 2004

Considerable attention in an AHP application is also

placed on the measurement of inconsistency in human
judgement. Inconsistency results, if a[ij] a[jk] is not equal
to a[jk] for some i,j,k . Various methods are available for
measuring the inconsistency of pair-wise comparison
matrix; small deviations in the a[ij] away from the
implied ratio scale lead only to small deviations in the
priority vector, and to a generally stable solution. This
result is due in part to the fact that the pair-wise
comparison matrix is positive reciprocal, and that
redundant information relating to priorities is present in
each pair-wise comparison matrix.
This approach differs from that of standard scoring
models, since the weights provided for the ratings of
each sub-criterion are not based on arbitrary scale, but
utilize a ratio scale for human judgments. Also, a
hierarchy is not the traditional decision tree. Each level
may represent a different cut at the problem. One level
may represent social factors and another technical
factors to be evaluated. Further, a decision maker can
insert or eliminate levels and elements as necessary to
clarify the task of setting priorities or to sharpen the
focus on one or more parts of the system. Elements that
have a global character can be represented at the higher
levels of the hierarchy, others that specifically
characterize the problem at hand can be developed in
greater depth. The task of setting priorities requires that
the criteria namely, the properties for features of the
alternatives being compared, and the alternatives
themselves are gradually layered in the hierarchy so
that it is meaningful to compare them among
themselves in relation to the elements of the next
higher level2.
Finally, after judgements have been made on the
impact of all the elements and priorities have been
computed for the hierarchy, as a whole, sometimes, and
with care the less important elements can be dropped
from further consideration because of their relatively
small impact on the overall objective. The priorities
can then be recomputed throughout, either with or
without changing the remaining judgements.
The framework for project selection system was
developed after considering the organizational context.
As explained earlier, it involves the availability and
reliability of data for measuring costs and benefits the
statement of organizational and project goals, and the
structure of R&D and supporting groups, among
others.
It is evident that project selection is based on
economic as well as social benefit-cost analysis. This

involves the consideration of both quantitative and

qualitative factors. Based upon an extensive literature
survey, a list of factors was identified which were
deemed critical in influencing the decision to select a
portfolio of R&D projects12. Then, after detailed
discussions with the management personnel at the
Institute the factors were short listed and modified so
that only those variables that the management felt more
important, and to which they can provide hard data or
firm opinions, were included. A method using
Analytical Hierarchy Process2 (AHP), for the
measurement and aggregation of the various project
selection criteria so as to prioritize and rank many
projects, was developed13.
The key factors finally short listed for the project
selection model fell into four principal categories, viz,
Organizational, Technical, Strategic and Financial
(Table 2)
Model Formulation
The AHP model developed for the project selection
system is presented in Fig. 1. In the first or top level is
the overall goal of the system to obtain the best
portfolio of projects. The second level is made up of
the four factors, which contribute to the goal, and the
third level is made up of the criteria constituting each
Table 2Factors relevant to project selection decision
(I) Organizational factors
1
2
3
4

Availability of human expertise to carry out the project in

the organization
Adequacy of equipment and facilities
In-house availability of technology
Availability of material resources and consumables

(II) Technical factors

1
2
3
4
5
6

Probability of technical success

Attractiveness of technological route
Anticipated completion time
Extent of innovation in the project objective
Extent of tie-in with existing projects
Technological relevance of the project

(III) Strategic factors

1
2
3
4
5

Relevance of project objectives in the social context

Clarity of definition of project objectives and its ultimate
benefits (project mission)
Utility of regional resources
Reputation of project leader
Anticipated change of commercial success

(IV) Financial factors

1
2
3

Financial feasibility of the project

Commercial sponsorship for the project
Aids or collaboration for the project from outside agencies

SURESH KUMAR: AHP-BASED FORMAL SYSTEM FOR R&D PROJECT EVALUATION

893

Fig. 1AHP model for project selection system

factor for project proposal evaluation.

The pair-wise comparison of the four factors in
relation to the focus is done first to reflect the
importance of each of the factors. Next, pairwise
comparison matrices are developed to reflect the
importance of each criterion in relation to the four
factors on an individual basis. Next level is the
evaluation of candidate projects.
If the number of projects proposed for
consideration is small then the projects could be pairwise compared with respect to each criterion.
However, when the number of projects is large, that
method is generally infeasible. For example, if there
are 20 R&D project proposals, n(n-1) / 2=190 pairwise comparisons are required for each of the 18
criteria listed. The explosion in the number of
required comparisons is the basic criticism of the
AHP method. The absolute measurement method of

the AHP overcomes this problem as the alternatives

are not pair-wise compared in this method. Instead, it
is enough to rate projects against each criterion on the
grading scale. A grading scale with five elements was
devised for rating the candidate projects, as shown in
Fig. 2.
A hypothetical example of project evaluation by a
single evaluator using the AHP-based project
selection model is presented here.
The procedure starts with the elicitation of pairwise comparison judgements to set priorities for the
criteria used in evaluation. The first level elements are
arranged into a matrix and the pair-wise comparisons
are done using the fundamental AHP judgement scale
given. The question to be asked for each entry in the
matrix of comparison is when the element on the left
hand side is compared with the element on the top,
how much more (or less) important it is with respect

J SCI IND RES VOL 63 NOVEMBER 2004

894

Fig. 2AHP grading scale for the project selection model

Table 3Hypothetical AHP comparison matrix for level 2
Level 2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

Eigen vector
[Pi]

Priority vector
[Pi]=[Pi]/ [P]

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

1/3
2

2
1
1/3
2

3
3
1
1/3

2
1

1.000
0.747
0.647
0.974

0.297
0.222
0.192
0.289

P= 1.000 + 0.747 + 0.647 + 0.974 = 3.368

to the overall goal of selecting the best portfolio of

projects? If the element on the left hand side is more
important, it is given an integer value 1-9
corresponding to its importance. If it is less important,
then it is given the corresponding reciprocal value.
The matrix of pair-wise comparisons for level 2,
along with the resulting priorities, is given in Table 3.
For example (referring to the scale), organizational
factor (factor 2.3) is attaining the stated goal and
hence assigned a value of 3. In turn, the comparison
score of factor 2.3 to factor 2.1 has the reciprocal
value of 1/3. The comparison of an item to itself is
given the value 1. Of all the pairs in the matrix, only
the pairs written above the diagonal need to be
compared, as the elements below the diagonal of the
matrix are obtained by taking reciprocal of the upper
ones.
As explained the AHP determines the priorities of
each factor or the importance or weight that should be
given to each factor, by analyzing such judgemental
matrices, using the mathematical theory of eigen values
and eigen vectors 10. AHP interprets the eigen vector
associated with the largest eigen value as the priorities
that indicate the importance of each alternative in
accomplishing the objective. The eigen vector [P] for
the factors are computed by the standard matrix
method for computing eigen vector and associated
maximum eigen value (or the geometric method which
nearly approximates to the same). The priority or

weight [Pi] given to the i the factor is obtained by

normalizing the Pi (i.e, transforming them so that their
resultant sum equals unity); i.e, [Pi]=[Pi] / [P], where
[P] is the sum of [Pi].
As an alternative, for a square matrix with n rows
and columns, the required priority eigen vector can
approximately be calculated as follows. For each row
I of the matrix, the product of the elements in that row
is taken and the corresponding geometric mean is
found out. Normalization of the resulting values will
yield the approximate priority eigen vector.
Similarly the analysis is done for the third level in
the hierarchy and the comparison matrices are
obtained (Tables 4-7)
Composite hierarchical priorities for the criteria are
obtained by multiplying each of the level 3 priority by
the corresponding level 2 priority as shown in
Table 8.
For example
For criterion 3.1.1, p = 0.108
Next step is to establish the composite priorities for
the candidate projects if the number of projects is
small (seven or less). Projects can be pairwise
compared with respect to each criterion (level 3) and
the relative composite priorities can be found out.
However, when the number of projects is large, it is
generally infeasible. Hence the absolute measurement
is applied, using the grading scale.

SURESH KUMAR: AHP-BASED FORMAL SYSTEM FOR R&D PROJECT EVALUATION

Table 4AHP comparison matrix for level 3.1

3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3

Level 3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4

1
1
1/3
1/3

1
1
1/3

3
3
1
1/3

895

3.1.4

Priority
vector Pi

3
4
3
1

0.364
0.385
0.164
0.087

Table 5AHP comparison matrix for level 3.2

Level 3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6

3.2.1

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

3.2.5

3.2.6

Priority
vector Pi

1
1/3

1/3

3
1
2
4
2
2

1
2
3
3

1
1/3

1/3
3
1
1

20

1/3
2
1
1

340
0.064
0.092
0.226
0.136
0.146

Level 3.3

3.3.1

3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5

1/3
1/3
1/3

Level 3.4

3.4.1

3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3

Table 6AHP comparison matrix for level 3.3

3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
2
1
1/3
1/3

3
3
1
5
5

3
3
1/5
1
1/3

3.3.5

Priority
vector Pi

3
2
1/5
3
1

0.360
0.258
0.059
0.193
0.131

Table 7AHP comparison matrix for level 3.4

3.4.2
3.4.3

1
4
2

1
1/3

Priority
vector Pi

3
1

0.137
0.625
0.238

Table 8AHP comparison matrix for level 5

Level 3.1
Very Poor
Poor
Satisfactory
Good
Excellent

Very Poor

Poor

Satisfactory

Good

Excellent

Priority
vector Pi

1
3
5
7
9

1/3
1
3
5
7

1/5
1/3
1
3
5

1/7
1/5
1/3
1
3

1/9
1/7
1/5
1
1

0.033
0.063
0.129
0.262
0.513

Priorities are assigned to the grades through paired

comparisons (Table 8). It is assumed that the grades
are the same for each of the parent criteria. Candidate
projects are evaluated for each criterion by identifying
the grade, which best describes it (Table 9) and the
score obtained for each project is calculated.
Thus the priority scores for the project proposals
are obtained, and they are ranked based on their
magnitude.
Conclusions
Though OR and econometric methods are used in
research evaluation, weighted multi-criteria models

have been found to be more suited to the

predominantly high-risk, low certainty profiles of
research situation in public funded laboratories.
Subjective judgements on expected outcomes and
intended impacts are typical of research evaluation
exercises, aimed at priority-setting and project
portfolio selection by management. AHP through its
structured hierarchy of decision levels and pair-wise
comparison of elements for value judgement is more
effective than utility models and scoring charts in
working at semi-quantitative data as realistic inputs to
the priority-setting agenda. They help to overcome in

J SCI IND RES VOL 63 NOVEMBER 2004

896

Table 9AHP evaluation matrix for hypothetical projects

CRITERIA
No
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3

wt
0.108
0.114
0.049
0.026
0.075
0.014
0.020
0.030
0.033
0.069
0.050
0.011
0.037
0.025
0.040
0.181
0.069

PROJECT PROPOSALS
1
2
G
P
P
P
S
V
S
S
S
G
S
S
G
P
P
V
S
P
S
S
S
P
G
S
P
P
G
S
S
P
S
V
S
V

3
G
S
G
G
S
S
S
G
S
S
G
G
S
G
G
G
V

4
P
P
S
S
P
S
G
S
S
P
P
S
P
S
S
P
G

5
V
V
S
S
V
S
S
G
G
G
S
S
G
S
G
G
P

6
P
S
P
P
S
S
G
P
P
P
P
S
P
P
S
V
V

Note; V- very good, P- Poor, S- Satisfactory, G-Good, and E- Excellent For example, for project 1,
Total score =

(0.108) (0.262) + (0.114)( 0.063) + ( 0.049)(0.129) +

(0.026) (0.129) + (0.075)(0.129) + (0.014)(0.129) +
(0.020) (0.262) + (0.050)(0.129) + (0.030)(0.063) +
0.033) (0.129) + (0.069)(0.129) + (0.050)(0.129) +
(0.011) (0.262) + (0.037)(0.063) + (0.025)(0.262) +
(0.040) (0.129) +(0.181) (0.129) + (0.069)(0.129)

a significant way the fuzzy nature of quantitative

information related to deliverable, logistics, and
outcome. In the resource constrained situation of the
developing countries, AHP provides a vital tool to
select and rank projects based on judgemental
evaluation through peer ratings. It is also found to be
most amenable to computerized decision support
system implementation.

3
4
5
6
7
8

Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the help rendered by Mr
N P Manojkumar, M Tech scholar in literature search
and data analysis. The help rendered by Mr M P
Varkey in preparing the chart, graphics and the
electronic manuscript is also acknowledged.
References
1
2

William D J, A study of decision models for R&D project

selection, OR Quarterly, 20 (3)(1969) 361.
Satty T L, The analytic hierarchic process (Mc Graw Hill,
New York) 1980.

9
10

11

12

13

Baker N R, R&D Project Selection Models, An assessment,

IEEE Trans. Engg. Mgmt, 21 (4) (1974)165-171.
Costello D, A practical approach to R&D Project selection,
Technol Forecast Soc.Change, 23(1983) 353-368.
Mills B & Kamau M, Methods of prioritizing research
options (ISNAR, The Hagiee)1998, pp 322.
Libertore M J & Titus G J, The Practise of Management
science in R&D project, Manage Sci 29 (8) (1983)962-974.
Monteith G Dm, R&D Administration (Hiffee Books Ltd,
London)(1969).
Hartwich F & Janssen W, Setting research priorities, Res
Evaluat, 9(3) (2000) 218.
Gass S I, Decision making models and algorithms (John
Wiley & Sons Inc, New York) 1985.
Schoemaker P J H & Waid C C, An experimental
comparison of different approaches to derermining weights
in additive utility models, Manage Sci, 28(2) (1982)182.
Libertore M J, An extension of the Analytic Hierarchy
Process for industrial R&D project selection and research
allocation, IEEE Trans Engg Mgmt, 34(1)(1987) 12.
Suresh Kumar S, Ganesh L S & Manoj Kumar N P, AHP
based DSS, M Tech project thesis, IE & M Division, IIT,
Madras, (1992).
Pinto J K & Selvin D P, Critical factors in successful project
implementation, IEEE Trans Engg Mgmt, 34(1)(1987) 16-23.