Desenvolvimento de uma ferramenta gerencial de priorização e seleção de portfólio de projetos utilizando a metodologia Analytic Hierarchy Process em empresas de software

Kaiser, Roberto; Futami, André Hideto; Valentina, Luiz Veriano Oliveira Dalla; Oliveira, Marco Aurélio de

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Gest. Prod. 26 (4) • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X4267-19 copiar

Desenvolvimento de uma ferramenta gerencial de priorização e seleção de portfólio de projetos utilizando a metodologia Analytic Hierarchy Process em empresas de software

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Resumo

Este estudo apresenta uma ferramenta gerencial de priorização e seleção de portfólio de projetos de desenvolvimento de software utilizando a metodologia Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). A necessidade de melhores resultados com recursos escassos é um desafio às organizações para gerar vantagem competitiva. A ferramenta é estruturada de acordo com análise de artigos relacionados à priorização e seleção de projetos, gerenciamento de portfólio e a metodologia AHP. A abordagem de pesquisa foi quantitativa por meio de estudo de caso aplicado. O caso foi desenvolvido em empresa de desenvolvimento de software de médio porte, localizada em Santa Catarina, líder em soluções para excelência de gestão, fornecedora de softwares e serviços para automação e aprimoramento de processos de negócios, conformidade regulamentar e governança corporativa. Possui mais de 2000 clientes, de diversos tamanhos e ramos de atuação. Estruturou-se um comitê com gestores e analistas, para definição dos grupos e critérios, e aplicação de um piloto de projetos. Identificaram-se oportunidades de utilização desta ferramenta gerencial para minimizar o jogo de poder, integração, compartilhamento de informações, aprendizado, comprometimento entre os tomadores de decisão e seleção de projetos alinhados estratégicamente.

Palavras-chave:
Gerenciamento de portfólio; Inovação; Priorização; Seleção de projetos; AHP

Methods	Saaty (1990) Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)9...	Archer & Ghasemzadeh (1999) Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999). An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 207-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00032-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)...	Cooper et al. (1999) Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1999). New product portfolio management: practices and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(4), 333-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(99)00005-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(99)...	Ghasemzadeh & Archer (2000) Ghasemzadeh, F., & Archer, N. P. (2000). Project portfolio selection through decision support. Decision Support Systems, 29(1), 73-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00065-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(00)...	Siddiqi (2000) Siddiqi, S. N. (2000). Project valuation and power portfolio management in a competitive market. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 15(1), 116-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/59.852109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/59.852109...	Ledoit & Wolf (2003) Ledoit, O., & Wolf, M. (2003). Improved estimation of the covariance matrix of stock returns with an application to portfolio selection. Journal of Empirical Finance, 10(5), 603-621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5398(03)00007-0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5398(03)...	Luz et al. (2006) Luz, S. D. C., Sellitto, M., & Gomes, L. (2006). Medição de desempenho ambiental baseada em método multicriterial de apoio à decisão: estudo de caso na indústria automotiva. Gestão & Produção, 13(3), 557-570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2006000300016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2006...	Anagnostopoulos & Mamanis (2010) Anagnostopoulos, K. P., & Mamanis, G. (2010). A portfolio optimization model with three objectives and discrete variables. Computers & Operations Research, 37(7), 1285-1297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2009.09.009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2009.09....	Padovani et al. (2010) Padovani, M., Carvalho, M. M., & Muscat, A. R. N. (2010). Portfolio of projects: case study of selection and balancing. Gestão & Produção, 17(1), 157-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2010000100013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2010...	Solak et al. (2010) Solak, S., Clarke, J. P. B., Johnson, E. L., & Barnes, E. R. (2010). Optimization of R&D project portfolios under endogenous uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(1), 420-433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.04.032. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.04...	Kremmel et al. (2011) Kremmel, T., Kubalík, J., & Biffl, S. (2011). Software project portfolio optimization with advanced multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Applied Soft Computing, 11(1), 1416-1426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2010.04.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2010.04...	Daneva et al. (2013) Daneva, M., Van der Veen, E., Amrit, C., Ghaisas, S., Sikkel, K., Kumar, R., Ajmeri, N., Ramteerthkar, U., & Wieringa, R. (2013). Agile requirements prioritization in large-scale outsourced system projects: an empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(5), 1333-1353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.12.046. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.12....	Dutra et al. (2014) Dutra, C. C., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & Carvalho, M. M. (2014). An economic–probabilistic model for project selection and prioritization. International Journal of Project Management, 32(6), 1042-1055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.12.004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.201...	Gupta et al. (2015) Gupta, S., Dangayach, G. S., Singh, A. K., & Rao, P. N. (2015). Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Model for evaluating sustainable manufacturing practices in Indian electrical panel industries. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 208-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015....	Kaiser et al. (2015) Kaiser, M. G., El Arbi, F., & Ahlemann, F. (2015). Successful project portfolio management beyond project selection techniques: understanding the role of structural alignment. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 126-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.201...	Neves & Camanho (2015) Neves, A. J. da S., & Camanho, R. (2015). Portfolio the use of AHP for IT project prioritization: a case study for oil & gas company. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 1097-1105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.0...	Tavana et al. (2015) Tavana, M., Keramatpour, M., Santos-Arteaga, F. J., & Ghorbaniane, E. (2015). A fuzzy hybrid project portfolio selection method using Data Development Analysis, TOPSIS and Integer Programming. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(22), 8432-8444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.06.057. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.06...	Mello et al. (2017) Mello, L., Bandeira, R., & Brandalise, N. (2017). Seleção de metodologia de mensuração de retrabalho através da utilização do método AHP. Gestão & Produção, 25(1), 94-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x2732-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x2732-...	Ribeiro & Alves (2017) Ribeiro, M., & Alves, A. (2017). O problema de seleção de portfolio de projetos de pesquisa em instituições de ensino: um estudo de caso. Gestão & Produção, 24(1), 25-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x2089-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x2089-...	Simplício et al. (2017) Simplício, R., Gomes, J., & Romão, M. (2017). Projects selection and prioritization: a Portuguese Navy pilot model. Procedia Computer Science, 121, 72-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.1...	Total
Approach ad hoc		X																			1
Financial methods		X	X																		2
Business strategy methods		X	X																		2
Market research		X			X																2
Models of scores			X				X														2
Bubble diagram or portfolio matrices			X			X															2
Comparative approaches or multicriteria analysis	X			X					X				X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	11
Optimization models								X		X	X	X									4

Criteria	Cooper et al. (1999) Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1999). New product portfolio management: practices and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(4), 333-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(99)00005-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(99)...	Luz et al. (2006) Luz, S. D. C., Sellitto, M., & Gomes, L. (2006). Medição de desempenho ambiental baseada em método multicriterial de apoio à decisão: estudo de caso na indústria automotiva. Gestão & Produção, 13(3), 557-570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2006000300016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2006...	Padovani et al. (2010) Padovani, M., Carvalho, M. M., & Muscat, A. R. N. (2010). Portfolio of projects: case study of selection and balancing. Gestão & Produção, 17(1), 157-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2010000100013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2010...	Rahmani et al. (2012) Rahmani, N., Talebpour, A., & Ahmadi, T. (2012). Developing a Multi criteria model for stochastic IT portfolio selection by AHP method. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 1041-1045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012....	Carvalho et al. (2013) Carvalho, M. M., Lopes, P. V. B. V. L., & Marzagão, D. S. L. (2013). Gestão de portfólio de projetos: contribuições e tendências da literatura. Gestão & Produção, 20(2), 433-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2013000200013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2013...	Dutra et al. (2014) Dutra, C. C., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & Carvalho, M. M. (2014). An economic–probabilistic model for project selection and prioritization. International Journal of Project Management, 32(6), 1042-1055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.12.004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.201...	Purnus & Bodea (2014) Purnus, A., & Bodea, C. N. (2014). Project prioritization and portfolio performance measurement in project oriented organizations. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 339-348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014....	Escobar (2015) Escobar, J. W. (2015). Metodología para la toma de decisiones de inversión en portafolio de acciones utilizando la técnica multicriterio AHP. Contaduría y Administración, 60(2), 346-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0186-1042(15)30004-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0186-1042(15)...	Reginaldo (2015) Reginaldo, F. (2015). Portfolio management in brazil and a proposal for evaluation and balancing of portfolio projects with ELECTRE TRI and IRIS. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 1265-1274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.0...	Ferreira et al. (2016) Ferreira, C., Nery, A., & Pinheiro, P. R. (2016). A multi-criteria model in information technology infrastructure problems. Procedia Computer Science, 91, 642-651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.0...	Total
Strategic alignment				X					X		2
Technical criteria				X		X	X			X	4
Cost	X	X	X	X		X		X			6
Availability	X	X									2
Level of innovation			X			X					2
Uncertainties involved			X		X	X					3
Process improvement				X					X		2
Cost-benefit ratio							X	X			2
Profitability								X	X		2
Return on investment	X						X				2
Risk	X			X	X		X	X			5
Internal rate of return	X						X				2
Net present value (NPV)	X			X			X				3

Group	Selection criterion	Group	Selection criterion
Group 1	Criterion 1.1 ... Criterion 1.n	...	...
Group 2	Criterion 2.1 ... Criterion 2.n	Group n	Criteria n.1 ... Criterion n.n

Group	Selection criterion	Group	Selection criterion
Strategic benefits	Strategic alignment High management support Community benefits Competitive advantage	Technical difficulty	Technical criteria Scope of development Degree of innovation Technological risk
Business benefit	Responding to clients' needs Process improvement Market potential / Billing Market risk	Finance costs	Cost of the project Return on investment Uncertainties involved Net present value

Scale	Numerical rating	Reciprocal
Equally importance	1	1
Moderate importance	3	1/3
Strongly importance	5	1/5
Very strongly importance	7	1/7
Extremely importance	9	1/9

	Element 1	Element 2	...	Element n
Element 1	$1$	$A 12$	...	$A 1 n$
Element 2	$1 / A 12$	$1$	...	$A 2 n$
...	...	...	...	...
Element n	$1 / A 1 n$	$1 / A 2 n$	...	$1$
Total	$\sum (C 1)$	$\sum (C 2)$	...	$\sum (C n)$

	Element 1	Element 2	...	Element n	Total Average
Element 1	$1 / \sum (C 1)$	$A 12 / \sum (C 2)$	...	$A 1 n / \sum (C n)$	$\sum (L C 1) / n$
Element 2	$(1 / A 12) / \sum (C 1)$	$1 / \sum (C 2)$	...	$A 2 n / \sum (C n)$	$\sum (L C 2) / n$
...	...	...	...	...	...
Element n	$(1 / A 1 n) / \sum (C 1)$	$(1 / A 2 n) / \sum (C 2)$	...	$A n n / \sum (C n)$	$\sum (L C n) / n$

Factor	$\sum (L C 1) / n$	$\sum (L C 2) / n$	...	$\sum (L C n) / n$
Total	$\sum (C 1)$	$\sum (C 2)$	...	$\sum (C n)$
Main Value (VP)	$[(\sum (L C 1) / n * \sum (C 1)) + (\sum (L C 2) / n * \sum (C 2)) + ... + (\sum (L C n) / n * \sum (C n))$

N	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
RI	0	0	0.58	0.9	1.12	1.24	1.32	1.41	1.45	1.49

	Business benefit	Strategic benefits	Finance costs	Technical difficulty
Business benefit	1	1/3	3	5
Strategic benefits	3	1	7	7
Finance costs	1/3	1/7	1	3
Technical difficulty	1/5	1/7	1/3	1
Total	4.5333	1.6190	11.3333	16.0000

Group	Calculation	Factor
Business benefit	$= (0.2206 + 0.2059 + 0.2647 + 0.3125) / 4$	0.2509
Strategic benefits	$= (0.6618 + 0.6176 + 0.6176 + 0.4375) / 4$	0.5836
Finance costs	$= (0.0735 + 0.0882 + 0.0882 + 0.1875) / 4$	0.1094
Technical difficulty	$= (0.0441 + 0.0882 + 0.0294 + 0.0625) / 4$	0.0561

	Responding to clients' needs	Process improvement	Market potential / Billing	Market risk
Responding to clients' needs	1	5	3	5
Process improvement	1/5	1	1/3	1/3
Market potential / Billing	1/3	3	1	3
Market risk	1/5	3	1/3	1
Total	1.7333	12.0000	4.6667	9.3333

	Strategic alignment	Support from top management	Community benefits	Competitive advantage
Strategic alignment	1	9	5	5
Support from top management	1/9	1	1/3	1/3
Community benefits	1/5	3	1	3
Competitive advantage	1/5	3	1/3	1
Total	1.5111	16.0000	6.6667	9.3333

	Project cost	Return on investment	Uncertainties involved	Net present value
Project cost	1	1/3	1/5	1/3
Return on investment	3	1	1/3	1/3
Uncertainties involved	5	3	1	3
Net present value	3	3	1/3	1
Total	12.0000	7.3333	1.8667	4.6667

	Technical criteria	Scope of development	Level of innovation	Technological risk
Technical criteria	1	1/3	1/3	1/9
Scope of development	3	1	1/3	1/5
Level of innovation	3	3	1	1/5
Technological risk	9	5	5	1
Total	16.0000	9.3333	6.6667	1.5111

Group	Criteria	Factor
Business benefit	Responding to clients' needs	0.1363
	Process improvement	0.0765
	Market potential / Billing	0.2445
	Market risk	0.1360
Strategic benefits	Strategic alignment	0.3662
	Support from top management	0.0324
	Community benefits	0.1155
	Competitive advantage	0.0696
Finance costs	Project cost	0.0084
	Return on investment	0.0174
	Uncertainties involved	0.0584
	Net present value	0.0288
Technical difficulty	Technical criteria	0.0031
	Scope of development	0.0067
	Level of innovation	0.0111
	Technological risk	0.0352

Project	Factor	Project	Factor
Project P1	0.0876	Project P6	0.0432
Project P2	0.0785	Project P7	0.0448
Project P3	0.1380	Project P8	0.0274
Project P4	0.1519	Project P9	0.0639
Project P5	0.2963	Project P10	0.0597

Universidade Federal de São Carlos Departamento de Engenharia de Produção , Caixa Postal 676 , 13.565-905 São Carlos SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 16 3351 8471 - São Carlos - SP - Brazil
E-mail: gp@dep.ufscar.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Source: Adapted from Saaty (1990)Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)9... .