Development of a decision support methodology for optimizing ROI in project management

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/2706-5448.2025.326385

Keywords:

Fuzzy TOPSIS, ROI optimization, Fuzzy AHP, project management, decision analysis

Abstract

The object of this research is the decision-making process in project management aimed at increasing efficiency and optimizing return on investment (ROI). One of the most problematic areas identified during the audit is the limited capability of traditional multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods – such as multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA) and weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) – to operate effectively under uncertainty, incorporate qualitative expert judgments, ensure objectivity in calculations, and maintain ranking stability when criteria weights change or when new alternatives and external factors are introduced – conditions often present in real-world management scenarios.

To address these limitations, the study employs an integrated fuzzy decision-making model that combines the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (Fuzzy AHP) and the fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (Fuzzy TOPSIS). Fuzzy AHP is used to determine the weights of criteria through expert pairwise comparisons, incorporating linguistic assessments transformed into triangular fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy TOPSIS ranks project alternatives by measuring their closeness to the ideal solution under uncertain conditions.

The proposed methodology also includes sensitivity analysis and rank reversal testing to validate the model’s robustness. The results demonstrate a stable ranking of three project alternatives, with Alternative B achieving the highest closeness coefficient (0.6628), indicating its superior investment attractiveness.

This decision support model integrates expert knowledge, fuzzy logic, and mathematical modeling, and is adaptable to changes in data, incomplete information, and varying evaluation criteria. Compared to classical MCDM approaches, it offers improved accuracy, flexibility, and robustness for strategic decision-making in dynamic environments.

Author Biography

Alish Nazarov, Azerbaijan State Oil and Industry University

PhD

Department of Management

References

  1. Ibbs, C. W., Reginato, J. M., Kwak, Y. H. (2007). Developing project management capability: Benchmarking, maturity, modeling, gap analyses, and ROI studies. The Wiley Guide to Project Organization & Project Management Competencies, 270–289.
  2. Danesh, D., Ryan, M. J., Abbasi, A. (2018). Multi-criteria decision-making methods for project portfolio management: a literature review. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 17 (1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmdm.2018.088813
  3. Manurung, S., Simamora, I. M. S., Allagan, H. (2021). Comparison of Moora, Waspas, and SAW methods in decision support systems. Jurnal Mantik, 5 (2), 485–493.
  4. Jayant, A., Singh, S., Garg, S. K. (2018). An integrated approach with MOORA, SWARA, and WASPAS methods for selection of 3PLSP. Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 2497–2509.
  5. Singh, R., Pathak, V. K., Kumar, R., Dikshit, M., Aherwar, A., Singh, V., Singh, T. (2024). A historical review and analysis on MOORA and its fuzzy extensions for different applications. Heliyon, 10 (3), e25453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25453
  6. Miç, P., Antmen, Z. F. (2021). A Decision-Making Model Based on TOPSIS, WASPAS, and MULTIMOORA Methods for University Location Selection Problem. Sage Open, 11 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211040115
  7. Pathapalli, V. R., Basam, V. R., Gudimetta, S. K., Koppula, M. R. (2019). Optimization of machining parameters using WASPAS and MOORA. World Journal of Engineering, 17 (2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/wje-07-2019-0202
  8. Mohagheghi, V., Mousavi, S. M. (2019). A new framework for high-technology project evaluation and project portfolio selection based on Pythagorean fuzzy WASPAS, MOORA, and mathematical modeling. Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 16 (6), 89–106.
  9. Talebi, K., Sartipi Pour, M., Azad, M., Ebrahim, H. (2024). A review of prioritization methods in preserving valuable villages. Journal of Rural Development.
  10. Chan, H. K., Sun, X., Chung, S.-H. (2019). When should fuzzy analytic hierarchy process be used instead of analytic hierarchy process? Decision Support Systems, 125, 113114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113114
  11. Sadiq, R., Tesfamariam, S. (2009). Environmental decision-making under uncertainty using intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (IF-AHP). Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 23 (4), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-007-0197-z
  12. Hendrawan, A. (2024). The Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods (MCDM) In Priorities of Industrial Location Development. Jurnal Infotel, 16 (4), 793–818. https://doi.org/10.20895/infotel.v16i4.1099
  13. Sultana, Mst. N., Sarker, O. S., Dhar, N. R. (2025). Parametric optimization and sensitivity analysis of the integrated Taguchi-CRITIC-EDAS method to enhance the surface quality and tensile test behavior of 3D printed PLA and ABS parts. Heliyon, 11 (1), e41289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41289
  14. Kabir, G., Hasin, M. A. A. (2011). Comparative analysis of AHP and fuzzy AHP models for multi-criteria inventory classification. International Journal of Fuzzy Logic Systems, 3 (1), 21–36.
  15. Saad, S. M., Kunhu, N., Mohamed, A. M. (2016). A fuzzy-AHP multi-criteria decision-making model for procurement process. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 23 (1). https://doi.org/10.1504/ijlsm.2016.073295
  16. Nieto-Morote, A., Ruz-Vila, F. (2011). A fuzzy ahp multi-criteria decision-making approach applied to combined cooling, heating, and power production systems. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 10 (3), 497–517. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622011004427
  17. Aladağ Mert, Y. (2023). Ranking of families applying for social aids using fuzzy AHP. ITU Library Repository.
  18. Kahraman, C., Onar, S. C., Cebi, S., Oztaysi, B., Tolga, A. C., Ucal Sari, I. (2024). Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems. Proceedings of the INFUS 2024 Conference. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67195-1
  19. Liu, F., Peng, Y., Zhang, W., Pedrycz, W. (2017). On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP. Journal of Systems Science and Information, 5 (2), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.21078/jssi-2017-128-20
  20. Kou, G., Ergu, D., Lin, C., Chen, Y. (2016). Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple criteria decision making. Technological and economic development of economy, 22 (5), 738–765. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1210694
  21. Guo, S., Zhao, H. (2017). Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Knowledge-Based Systems, 121, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.01.010
  22. Gardashova, L. A. (2024). Decision-Making on the Information Technology Investment Problem Under Z-Environment. 16th International Conference on Applications of Fuzzy Systems, Soft Computing and Artificial Intelligence Tools – ICAFS-2023, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-76283-3_10
  23. Siregar, V. M. M., Tampubolon, M. R., Parapat, E. P. S., Malau, E. I., Hutagalung, D. S. (2021). Decision support system for selection technique using MOORA method. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1088 (1), 012022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1088/1/012022
Development of a decision support methodology for optimizing ROI in project management

Downloads

Published

2025-04-09

How to Cite

Nazarov, A. (2025). Development of a decision support methodology for optimizing ROI in project management. Technology Audit and Production Reserves, 2(2(82), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.15587/2706-5448.2025.326385

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 2(82) (2025): Information and control systems

Section

Systems and Control Processes

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Alish Nazarov

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The consolidation and conditions for the transfer of copyright (identification of authorship) is carried out in the License Agreement. In particular, the authors reserve the right to the authorship of their manuscript and transfer the first publication of this work to the journal under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY license. At the same time, they have the right to conclude on their own additional agreements concerning the non-exclusive distribution of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal, but provided that the link to the first publication of the article in this journal is preserved.