Multicriteria analysis to select team members for software projects
Keywords:Productive systems; Team selection; Software design; AHP.
This study presents an application of Multicriteria Analysis for evaluation and selection of members of software project teams through the adequacy of the technical profile, aiming to verify if existing teams used technical criteria for their composition. It uses documentary self-assessment of knowledge made by employees, field survey to define required levels of knowledge in projects and weighting through peer-to-peer comparison using AHP, categorization of knowledge using context analysis and calculation of average technical adequacy indexes (TAI), using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. It explores a new application of the AHP method that aims to improve decision making in selection of team members for software development. As main results found that there was a low level of technical adequacy in the analyzed projects (less than 50%). Corroborating this result, simulation of the redistribution of members between teams caused absolute improvement of 2.3% and relative improvement of 10% in indicator. This result indicated that technical criteria is not the one adopted in selection of team members or there were restrictions at choice. This study shows that is possible to use the AHP method to support decision making when selecting team members using technical criteria, increasing assertiveness.
Bazerman, M. H. (2014). Processo decisório. (8a ed.) Elsevier. Rio de Janeiro. ISBN 978-85-352-7711-1
Belston, V. A. & Gear, T. (1985). The legitimacy of rank reversal - a comment. Omega. 13(3), 143-144.
BPMG. AHP Online System (2018). Multi-criteria Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. https://bpmsg.com/academic/ahp.php
Browning, T. (2016). Design Structure Matrix Extensions and Innovations: A Survey and New Opportunities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 63(1), 27-52.
Cabinillas, C., Manoel, R., Mendiling, J. & Ruiz-Cortês, A. (2015). Automated team selection and compliance checking in business processes. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Software and System Process. Estonia.
Carr, S. C. (2005). Globalization and culture at work: Exploring their combined globality. Springer.
Zheng, X., Ritter, S. C. & Miller, S. R (2018). How concept selection tools impact the development of creative ideas in engineering design education. ASME. Journal of Mechanical Design. 140(5), 052002.
Cauchick-Miguel, P. A. (Ed.) (2018). Metodologia de pesquisa em engenharia de produção e gestão de operações. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Chavira, D. A. G., Lopez, J. C. L., Noriega, J. J. S. & Leonardo, J. (2017). A multicriteria outranking modeling approach for personnel selection. IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE).
Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Utility theory for decision making. Wiley, New York.
Fishburn, P. C. (1972). Mathematics of decision theory. UNESCO.
Fishburn, P. C. (1982). The Foundation of Expected Utility. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.
Fitzpatrick, E. L. & Askin, R. G. (2015). Forming effective worker teams with multi-functional skill requirements. Computers & Industrial Engineering. Elsevier. 48(3), 593-608.
Guillaume, R., Houé, R. & Grabot, B. (2014). Robust competence assessment for job assignment. European Journal of Operational Research. Elsevier. 238(2), 630-644.
Kelemenis, A., Ergazakis, K. & Askounis, D. (2011). Support managers' selection using an extension of fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications. Elsevier. 38(3), 2774-2782.
Lootsma, F. A. (1990). A multiplicative variant of the analytic hierarchy process. Report of the Faculty of Technical Mathematics and Informatics, No. 90-45. Delft.
Roy, B. (1976). From optimization to multicriteria decision aid: Three main operational attitutes. In: Thiriez, H., Zionts, S. (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 130. Springer, Berlin, 1-32.
Roy, B. (1985). Methodologie multicritère d'aide à la décision. Economica, Paris.
Roy, B. (1990). Decision aid and decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 45, 324-331.
Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theor Decis 31, 49–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134132
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy proccess. McGraw-Hill. New York.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). The AHP: How to make a decision. European Journal of Operational Research, num. 48. North-Holland.
Saaty, T. L. (2013). The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach. Operations Research 61(5), 1101-1118. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2013.1197
Shu, P., Feng, B., Jiang, Z., & Fu, N. (2009). A method for member selection of R&D teams using the individual and collaborative information. Expert Systems with Applications. 36. 8313-8323.
Toh, C. A., & Miller, S. R. (2015). How engineering teams select design concepts: A view through the lens of creativity. Design Studies, 39, 111-138.
Tsai, W., Chou, Y., Lee, K., Lin, W. & Hwang, E. T. Y. (2013). Combining Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory with Analytic Network Process to Perform an Investigation of Information Technology Auditing and Risk Control in an Enterprise Resource Planning Environment. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 30(2), 173-196.
Watson, S. R. & Freeling, A. N. S. (1982). Assessing attribute weights by ratios. Omega. 10(6), 582-585.
Zahraa, A. A. M., Omar, M., Ahmad, M. & Muhisn, S. (2015). Team formation model of selecting team leader: An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Journal of Software. 10, 1216-1227.
Zheng, X., & Miller, S.R. (2016). How do I choose? The influence of concept selection methods on student team decision-making. ASME. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2020 Carlos Eduardo Stefani; Marcelo Duduchi; Marilia Macorin de Azevedo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.