Project portfolio management Towards a new project prioritization process Driss EL HANNACH, Rabia MARGHOUBI, Mohamed DAHCHOUR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS CEDOC "2TI", "STRS" LABORATORY, "ISL" TEAM 2, av ALLal EL Fassi - Madinat AL Irfane - Rabat – MOROCCO
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract— Project Portfolio Management (PPM) is considered in the decision process’s companies and organizations, as a way of managing endogenous hazards (poor management, technical problems, human problems ... etc.) and exogenous (evolution market, organizational change, etc. ...). The PPM is the heart of the company's economic performance. This explains the key role of PPM in developing the investment budget. The selected portfolio must consume the resources necessary for the implementation of projects that constitute it. These resources have become increasingly limited. Project prioritization becomes necessary to execute projects that will generate maximum revenues to the company. Thus, project prioritization process, however, have many limitations. On one hand, these processes are complex and are characterized by achieving multiple objectives, conflicting and difficult to measure. Furthermore, they are subject to many constraints from the inaccuracy of the data used in the estimation cycle, until the uncertainty on the values used in the analysis. Moreover, the information available to decision makers, to build these processes is often incomplete. A valid formal process to all organizations does not exist. The objective of this article is to propose a project portfolio prioritization process that takes into account the strategic and operational alignment of the organization. Keywords— Project prioritization, project prioritization process, multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), evaluation criteria, project prioritization methods, resource constraints, strategic and operational alignment.
I. INTRODUCTION The project portfolio prioritization is among the most important issues in the field of decision making, which requires special attention on the part of organizations [15]. Usually, selecting a small subset of projects from a wide range of projects, based on a multi-criteria selection system, is considered a problem of multi-criteria decision-making (PMCDM) affected simultaneously public organizations and private companies. The frequent changes in technology and market conditions, combined with the strong customer demand, requiring organizations to increase productivity and improve outcomes [5]. In this context, the projects must create economic value and generate competitive advantage. Potential projects must 978-1-4673-7689-1/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
consume the scarce resources available to them, because there is a great difficulty to fund all the proposed projects. It is then a necessary to implement a priority system to determine which projects to implement in the first place. This system will aim to build a balanced portfolio in terms of risk, nature and size [16]. Recent research has shown that organizations implement their strategies through project portfolio management. Therefore, project prioritization aims to select the right projects to be included in the portfolio. This is an important and complex task. First, it must ensure that the company's strategic objectives are achieved. Then, the selected portfolio will generate maximum revenues using the limited resources available. In addition, several approaches have been used in the literature, to prioritize and select projects to include in the portfolio. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. In addition, and depending on the context, each organization develops its own prioritization process [11]. Considered a strategic decision problem, project prioritization process is complex and characterized by multiple and conflicting objectives that are difficult to measure [5]. In addition, the information made available to decision makers is often incomplete. So, uncertainty is coupled with the complexity of the project prioritization process. To ensure that all selected projects generate maximum revenues, the prioritization process should incorporate a system of assessment aligned with the business strategies of the organization criteria. For example, the Regional Board of the company "Puget", specializing in the field of transport in the United States of America, developed a formal prioritization process transmission projects by integrating independent scales measuring criteria evaluation [13]. This process is based on the model "cost-benefit analysis" (CBA), which is considered a project prioritization and valuable tool for establishing investment plans. Built in the 2040 business vision plan, it aims to: • include new projects prioritized in the portfolio and determine their status after their admissions ; • move out of the portfolio, projects that are not aligned with the company's vision ;
change the status of the projects if there is change in terms of vision ; • assign priorities to selected projects and other existing projects in the portfolio; The prioritization process based on the CBA guide policymakers for ranking through the prioritization of many investment projects, and to determine the usefulness of the resulting economic ranking in the forefront of investment projects, the process is subject to many constraints from the inaccuracy of the data used in the estimation cycle, until the uncertainty on the values used in the analysis. Systematic technology in the field of multi-criteria decision making may be useful to support the project portfolio prioritization process of information systems [14]. This approach involves both policy-makers and users in the process of prioritizing and aggregating their judgments according to a calculation system of fuzzy weighted average. The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 deals with the issue, Section 3 relate to the state of the art of the prioritization process and Section 4 describes our process to prioritize project portfolio. •
II. PROBLEMATIC There are several tools and techniques to select and prioritize the project portfolio. Therefore, it is not difficult for companies and organizations to work with an appropriate prioritization tool. El Hannach et al. (2014) [25] conducted a comparative study of different projects prioritization approaches, through which they deduced that the studied process, project prioritization, taking into account the value of the portfolio built, the constraints of available resources and the level of risk tolerated. The problem therefore lies in the lack of a prioritization process which formalizes a clear strategic alignment of the company, which will organize and develop these tools and techniques in a logical manner and balanced along the project life cycle. Therefore, it is important to develop a project prioritization process to guide decisionmakers at various levels of the organization, evaluate proposed projects in order to build a balanced portfolio, and other added projects depending on new requirements to align them with the company's strategy, and generate the maximum revenues within the limits of available resources (financial and non-financial), while minimizing the risks associated with the uncertainty of the current economic environment. Several project portfolio prioritization processes were proposed in the literature. However, the strategic and operational alignment is not considered in any of them. The attributes of PPM can be categorized into strategic attributes and operational attributes [26]. The strategic attributes are: 1) strategic alignment 2) adaptability to internal and external changes and 3) the expected value of the portfolio. But the operational attributes are: 1) project visibility 2) transparency in portfolio decision making and 3) predictability of project delivery. To fill this gap, we propose a new project portfolio prioritization process that fit a maximum number of project
types (investment, transport, R&D, IT ... etc.) in different organizations. The proposed prioritization process will have to meet the following requirements before implementing it in the company [12]: • Flexibility: give users the option to choose the tools suited to their needs ; • Simplicity: take into account the different stages of prioritization ; • Standardization: adopt the same evaluation system for all projects along the prioritization process; • Agility: revalue the portfolio if new projects are proposed or the strategy of the organization undergoes changes; In short, PPM is a strategic process whose nature is mainly to identify, prioritize, monitor and authorize projects that achieve the strategic objectives of the organizations. The projects undertaken are sometimes abandoned for lack of strategic alignment with organizational objectives (priority project does not match with the strategic priorities). In the following section, we will review the state of the art of project prioritization process. III. LITERATURE REVIEW In the literature, a lot of work has been done to solve the problem of project prioritization. For the investment portfolio, for example, the difficulty of prioritizing projects according to their importance is the result of two important factors. The first is the lack of information resources (database, project reports, the strategic committee reports, etc. ....). The second factor is related to the difficulty of accurately predicting the state investment in the future [1]. This research shows that each Project prioritization technique relies on its own prioritization process. Yuri et al (2015) [17] proposed a project portfolio prioritization process based on the evaluation of synergies between projects. The objective is to put forward a multiattribute utility theory (MAUT) to aid prioritizing oil and gas development projects in order to assign them to an appropriate portfolio. The Fig. 1 describes the essential steps of the proposed model. Defining Projects
MAUT
Application of Optimization Model No Satisfactory solution ?
Yes Selected priority projects
Fig. 1: process proposed by Yuri [17]
As for Dimitrios et al (2007) [18], the proposed process, as shown in Fig. 2, is presented as a project prioritization process of investment for the construction of the infrastructure of the multinational transportation. The process involves four components, constituting the procedural phases (identification, data collection, evaluation and prioritization), ensuring at the first procedural phase the inclusion of all projects, as these are proposed by the countries. In addition, criteria related to financial and economic viability of the projects and their international dimensions are included. The process has been applied to prioritize transport projects in a multinational transport network.
For Karydas DM et al (2006) [20], the prioritization process, as shown in Fig. 3, is presented as a method of prioritization of infrastructure renewal projects. This process presents a case study of prioritizing projects and the competing criteria and constraints that influence the judgment of the decision-makers. Such criteria include minimization of risk, optimization of economic impact. The overall goal is to create a prioritized list of projects.
Fig. 3: process proposed by D.M Karydas [20]
Fig. 2: process presented by Dimitrios [18]
Another type of project prioritization process uses a genetic algorithm, based nonlinear integer programming, to prioritize the project portfolio in a multi-criteria environment, was presented by Lean Yu et al (2010) [15]. The steps of this model are described below: • define the function called "fitness function" ; • randomly reproduce the initial population (i.e. all the proposed projects) ; • apply the so-called operation "CROSSOVER" to initialize the chromosomes ; • run the mutation operation of chromosomes ; • Creation of the population that has the highest "fitness" (priority projects) ; • evaluate the final chromosome (portfolio containing the most priority projects) ; For projects related to information technology (IT), Igor et al (2010) [23] proposed prioritization process, shown in Fig. 4, based on the evaluation of projects in four major dimensions (financial, risk, strategic, adequacy of the current system) allows to prioritize IT projects according to the capacity of the IT department (financial, human resources, infrastructure ... etc.). This process by which the IT department determines,
jointly with the CIO (Chief Information Officer), the board and IT strategy committee, which projects will generate the highest value for the company and how many can be run simultaneously, considering the organization’s IT capacity.
The priorities listing and ranking are added to periodically and reassessed as new projects are added or when projects have been completed.
Fig. 4: process of prioritizing IT projects [23]
As for Serkan et al (2015) [1], they proposed a project prioritization process based on DEMATEL method (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory). This process, as shown in Fig. 5, aims to prioritize investment projects taking into account two important criteria: (i) the decreasing rate of
Fig. 5: Project prioritization process based on the method DEMATEL [1]
Foreign trade deficits in the country and (ii) the potential to attracting new investments. The patent citation database is used for prediction due to the fact that it is a resource and provides information for investment projects. Next, the DEMATEL is conducted to find the effect among technologies by using patent citation numbers. The foreign trade deficit ratio in the country is calculated for the invested technology. The final prioritization score (FPS) for projects are finally computed. The project proposals can be ranked in descending order regarding their FPS. In sum, the project prioritization processes discussed above are characterized by the inadequacy of projects with the strategies of the organization: projects are not aligned with the strategic directions and priority of projects does not match with the strategic priorities of the company. In addition, prioritization is based primarily on the individual characteristics of projects. In the next section, we propose a project portfolio prioritization process that differs from existing works in that it takes into account the strategic alignment of the company. IV. OUR CONTRIBUTION In this paper, an overview of our process is shown in Fig. 6, which takes into account the organizational context of the company. It’s argued that successful PPM depends on an organization’s structural alignment with the needs of PPM [27]. The process is composed of a series of activities as pictured successively in Fig. 7, Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, specific to
each stage, which is characterized by its own use appropriate tools and techniques, and the integration of actors involved in decision making. This context shows, as shown in Fig. 10, in a very clear manner the relationship between the different components namely: mission, vision and strategic objectives. The mission is the purpose of the organization. Either long term or short term, the vision is set by the top management as part of the mission. The strategic objectives are implemented to achieve the purpose of the business. The processes are subsequently identified to achieve the strategic objectives. The latter can be achieved in two ways, namely: • We use the processes and the ongoing operations of the company. • Or through the launch of new projects.
Fig. 10: Organizational Background of the company
What interests us in our frame of reference for the project portfolio prioritization is the realization of these strategic objectives by launching new projects for which the strategic and operational alignment must ensure. The project prioritization process allows updating the knowledge base of the organization, through which the knowledge of the company is capitalized. First, the prioritization process is to transform the knowledge of experts in the form of organized information and knowledge made available to the organization. Other shares, the end of the process, it can be transformed by learning the information and knowledge of the organization, in the form of new skills. The proposed prioritization process involves and the various stakeholders in decision-making and consists of the following main activities: 1) Identification: the objective of this phase is to screen projects worthy of being examined in more detail. Taking into account the views of different stakeholders is a key element in this step. This would ensure that the objectives proposed by the strategy are achievable in practice. This step is essential for candidates to enter projects in the portfolio are identified before the prioritization phase. Once the inventory has been
completed, we proceed to the classification by type of project. For example, it may be convenient to group the mandatory project vs. discretionary. 2) Categorization: classification of projects is an essential and necessary operation to facilitate operation of the prioritization process. This is to group each type of projects in a separate category. The objective is to create a balanced portfolio of projects (investment projects, operation plans, etc. ...) to streamline the allocation of resources available for each category. There are three categories of projects: • technically compatible projects can be realized simultaneously if resources permit ; • technically incompatible projects: they cannot be performed simultaneously because their purposes (products in competition on a given market) ; • related projects: they can only be achieved together ; 3) Assessment: in this stage, the major effect is to calculate a score for each project, called degree of performance against evaluation criteria. [18] Special attention must be given to the definition of these criteria (qualitative, quantitative, hybrids) for at least a complete list needed for effective evaluation. The project evaluation criteria can be structured in order to build a catalog of criteria. The evaluation focuses on the level of achievement of the objectives of each individual project, especially if they are heterogeneous (because of their size, nature ... etc.). It is a decision of type "Go / Kill". So are four essential steps to consider: 31- Definition of criteria: their number should not exceed a reasonable limit because they reflect the preferences of different stakeholders in the prioritization process (government, local authorities, financing and loan agencies, private organizations ... etc.). The criteria are grouped according to different aspects (economic, social, environmental, political, etc. ...) and applied to projects submitted for evaluation. 32- The value of criteria: the defined criteria may have measurable values or have qualitative values assigned by expert judgment. In the latter case, special attention must be given to these criteria to quantify. 33- Weighting of the criteria: it is assigned its own weighting to each criterion according to its importance. This operation is conducted and led by a group of experts from national organization, international or different institutions. These experts may use tools such as AHP "Analytical Hierarchy Process" to calculate the weights of the criteria. 34- Calculating the total score of the projects: the final score for each project is calculated by an equation to clean each type of test. If the projects are interrelated by their essential completion (data, processes, knowledge ... etc.), which is can be a source of uncertainty in their assessment. Uncertainty becomes less important according to the environment in which projects are managed, the level of cooperation between managers and how organized the negotiation of the allocation of resources.
4) Selection: the selection is to choose all the projects that
will be addressed in the next phase which is prioritization. The goal is to prioritize the projects that have reached the threshold values against each criterion.
Fig. 6 : overall project prioritization process
5) Prioritization: it is the most important step of this prioritization process. The goal is to assign a priority to all projects according to the total score for each project [18]. Thereby assisting policy makers to schedule the execution of projects along the planned time frame (immediate, short, medium and long term). Projects must be prioritized in terms of available resources (limited). A limited number of projects can be undertaken and included in the portfolio. It is necessary to allocate among themselves the resources available. However, the level of achievement of portfolio objectives as a whole should help compare projects beyond their heterogeneities (mature projects are competing with project ideas) and form the portfolio as a whole. Project prioritizations methods belong to two schools of thought: a qualitative and one quantitative. Depending on the case, a type of specific projects (investment projects) could be prioritized by specific methods. Afterwards, the result must be submitted to the Board for approval [23]. If it is for example IT projects (Information Technology), ISM (Information Systems Management) must consider IT department's ability if he has the means to implement projects (human resources, hardware, software, infrastructure, ... etc.). Then, the CFO must ensure that the company has sufficient financial resources to implement the projects. Without these resources, it must provide adequate alternatives to postpone the execution of projects. It should generally predict how projects will affect the budget of the financial year in progress. This will require a perfect mastery of the timing of the expenditure related to the flow of cash, to
effectively manage the financial reserves which will be allocated to projects in progress. After approving the projects prioritized by the board, the portfolio of projects is subject to the DG (Directorate General) for final validation. The portfolio is now ready for implementation, and project managers will be responsible for executing them. 6) Adjustment: like financial investment, the portfolio needs to be adjusted [21]. The main goal is to have an overall balance between risk, return on investment, profit (financial and nonfinancial) Short and long-term, on-time project delivery and the competitive impact on the portfolio. The adjustment allows for periodically reviewing the portfolio as a whole, on the one hand by taking such decisions "Go / Kill" on projects, units of other developing strategic decisions about how resources are allocated [21]. Take for example, a company that has a number of ongoing projects. Because of changes that affect the market environment and economic policy, the company may need to adjust some of the existing projects in its portfolio [22]. Therefore both cases are possible: either abandon the least profitable projects and consumer more resources or keep revenues generating projects while undertaking their upgrade. Meanwhile, and during the preparation of the annual budget, the organization will make the selection of new projects from the set of candidate projects. The objective is to achieve a maximum return on investment, by adjusting existing projects and / or selecting new projects, within the constraints of resources and risk control.
Fig. 9: Adjusting projects
Fig. 7: Organizational context of the company
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The challenge to develop an effective project portfolio prioritization approach for the organization is a difficult task. It must be based on a process that will take the organizational culture of the company, to achieve strategic and operational objectives to increase productivity and turnover in a business world characterized by the uncertainty. Furthermore, such a project prioritization process will also find the necessary balance between short and long-term pressures generated by the needs of the organization and to ensure that efforts are oriented projects such to achieve strategic and operational objectives. The process proposed in this paper to prioritize the project portfolio in the company, taking into consideration all the actions and activities in relation to each other, to produce a set of products, results, or services. It also takes into account the organizational assets and environmental factors. Organizational assets provide the criteria for adapting the
Fig. 8: Project Prioritization
process to project needs and the environmental factors impose constraints uncertainty, risk and business agility. By analyzing these elements mentioned above, this project portfolio prioritization process is presented in a formal and structured manner, and its implementation is necessary. Project Portfolio Management (PPM) involves all methods and tools for an organization to plan, evaluate, analyze and monitor the implementation of a set of projects or project proposals, sharing common resources, or contributing to the achievement of common objectives. The PPM is thus characterized by the following limits: • the uncertainty of information necessary for the decision (future events); • Portfolio agile composition (changes in available information and business environment) ; • heterogeneity of the portfolio (quantity and quality of information available vary) ;
available resources always limited and scarce (allocation and reallocation of these resources is difficult) ; • portfolio balance is hardly manageable (alignment with the vision, strategy, objectives and culture of the company and the level of risk and benefit that the company is prepared to accept) ; The models supporting decision making (MSDM), by their ability to structure problems, to model preferences and aggregate views, present themselves as the most appropriate media on decision making. The next research will be to analyze the project portfolio management specifics describing the main models, highlighting their limitations, including lack of formal theoretical validity and transparency. •
REFERENCES [1]
[2]
[3] [4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] [12]
Serkan Altuntas, Türkay Dereli, 2015, "A novel approach based on DEMATEL method and patent citation analysis for prioritizing a portfolio of investment projects", Expert Systems with Applications2015, pp 1003–1012, Published by Elsevier Ltd, DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.09.018. Augustin Purnus, Constanta-Nicoleta Bodea, 2014, “Project Prioritization and Portfolio Performance Measurement in Project Oriented Organizations”, 27th IPMA World Congress, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 119 (2014), Published by Elsevier Ltd, pp. 339 – 348. PMI, 2013, "The standard for portfolio management", third edition, project management institute, Inc. Archer, N.P., Ghasemzadeh, F., 2004, "Project Portfolio Selection and Management", In: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K. (Eds.), the Wiley Guide to Managing Projects. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, pp. 237– 255 Camila Costa Dutra, José Luis Duarte Ribeiro, Marly Monteiro de Carvalho, 2014, "An economic–probabilistic model for project selection and prioritization", International Journal of Project Management-01599-No of Pages 14, Published by Elsevier Ltd, DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.12.004. Mohammad Abbassi, Maryam Ashrafi, Ebrahim Sharifi Tashnizi, 2014, “Selecting balanced portfolios of R&D projects with interdependencies: A Cross-Entropy based methodology”, Technovation 34 (2014), Published by Elsevier Ltd, pp. 54–63. Urli Bruno, Naoum Anouar, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Leroy Daniel, Université François Rabelais de Tours, France, 2011, "Proposition d’un modèle multicritère de sé-lection de portefeuille de projets", Les nouvelles frontières en management et gestion des projets _UQO-2011. Maciej Nowak, 2013,"Project Portfolio Selection Using Interactive Approach", 11th Interna-tional Conference on Modern Building Materials, Structures and Techniques, MBMST 2013, Procedia Engineering 57 ( 2013 ) 814 – 822, http://doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.103. Zhaohong Wang, Yue Yu, 2011, "Information Entropy Method for Project Portfolio Selec-tion", 2011 Eighth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discov-ery (FSKD), 978-1-61284-1816/11/$26.00 © IEEE. Cleber Mira, Pedro Feijӑo, Maria Angélica Souza, Arnaldo Moura, Joӑo Meidanis, Gabriel Lima, Renato P. Bossolan, ítalo T. Freitas, 2013, "A Project Portfolio Selection Decision Support System", 978-14673-4843-0/13/$31.00 © IEEE. Clifford F.Gray, Erik W.Larson, 2008, "Project management:the managerial process", ISBN : 0073525154,9780073525150, longueur:589 pages. Wu Yunna, Chen Jian, Liu Chao,Wang Heping, 2013, "ON THE METHOD AND MODEL OF ENERGY ENTERPRISE PROJECT PORTFOLIO SELECTION AND OPTIMAL ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES", Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information
[13] [14]
[15] [16] [17]
[18] [19]
[20]
[21] [22] [23]
[24] [25]
[26] [27]
Technology, Vol. 48 No.1, ISSN: 1992-8645, E-ISSN: 1817-3195, No of Pages 9, http://www.jatit.org. Maren L. Outwater, Thomas Adler, Jeffrey Dumont, 2011, "Quantitative Approaches for Project Prioritization: A Puget Sound Case Study", No of Pages 17. Vassilis C. Gerogiannis, Panos Fitsilisa, Achilles D. Kameas, 2013, "Evaluation of project and portfolio Management Information Systems with the use of a hybrid IFS-TOPSIS method", Intelligent Decision Technologies 7 (2013),pp. 91-105, DOI 10.3233/IDT-120153. Lean Yu, Shouyang Wang, Fenghua Wen, Kin Keung Lai, 2012, "Genetic algorithm-based multi-criteria project portfolio selection", Ann Oper Res 197 (2012), pp.71–86, DOI 10.1007/s10479-010-0819-6. Olivier Brongniart, Muriel Fally, Joachim Treyer, 2012, "Gestion de portefeuille de projets au service de la compétitivité", Edition Lavoisier, ISBN : 978-2-7462-3819-0, ISSN : 1635-7361. Yuri Gama Lopes, Adiel Teixeira de Almeida, 2015, "Assessment of synergies for selecting a project portfolio in the petroleum industry based on a multi-attribute utility function", Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 126 (2015), pp. 131–140, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.12.012. Dimitrios A. Tsamboulas, 2007, "A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments", Transport Policy 14 (2007), pp. 11–26, DOI:10.1016/j.tranpol.2006.06.001. Michael G. Kaiser, Fedi El Arbi , Frederik Ahlemann, 2014, "Successful project portfolio management beyond project selection techniques: Understanding the role of structural alignment", International Journal of Project Management JPMA-01629, No of Pages 14, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.002. D.M. Karydas, J.F. Gifun, 2006, "A method for the efficient prioritization of infrastructure renewal projects", Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (2006), pp. 84–99, DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2004.11.016. Minh Cao Le, Van Tau Nguyen, 2007, "Strategy for project portfolio selection in private corporations in Vietnam", Master Thesis, Umea School of Business Sweden, No of Pages 83, www.usbe.umu.se. Xiaoxia Huang, Lan Xiang, Sardar M.N.Islam, 2014, "Optimal project adjustment and selection", Economic Modelling 36 (2014) 391-397, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod-2013-10-004. Igor Aguilar Alonso, José Carrillo Verdun, Edmundo Tovar Caro, 2010, "Project prioritization as a key element in IT strategic demand management", Innovations and advances in computer sciences and engineering, pp. 417-422, doi://10.1007/978-90-481-3658-2-73. Nassim Dehouche, 2014, "Management de portefeuilles de projets", Edition universitaires Européennes, ISBN-13: 978-3-8417-3666-6, ISBN-10: 3841736661, Nombre de pages: 148. Driss EL HANNACH, Rabia MARGHOUBI, Mohammed DAHCHOUR, 2014, " Étude comparative des différentes approches de priorisation de projets", 4th International Workshop of Innovation and New Trends in Information Systems, INTIS'2014, Proceedings (2014) pp. 87-100. Peerasit Patanakul, 2015, "Key attributes of effectiveness in managing project portfolio", International Journal of Project Management-01724, No of Pages 14, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.004. Michael G. Kaiser, Fedi El Arbi, Frederik Ahlemann, 2014, "Successful project portfolio management beyond project selection techniques: Understanding the role of structural alignment", International Journal of Project Management-01629, No of Pages 14, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.002.
