Home Program
PDF download
Cite article
Share options
Informations, rights and permissions
Issue image
Vol 14, 2025
Pages: 61 - 69
Review Scientific Paper
Economics, Management and Еntrepreneurship Editor: Darjana Sredić
See full issue

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Metrics and citations
Abstract views: 645
PDF Downloads: 534
Google scholar: See link
Article content
  1. Abstract
  2. Disclaimer
Received: 20.08.2025. >> Accepted: 16.09.2025. >> Published: 21.11.2025. Review Scientific Paper Economics, Management and Еntrepreneurship Editor: Darjana Sredić

RANKING OF THE SOFTWARE PACKAGES FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT USING INTEGRATED MCDM METHODS

By
Dragana Perišić ,
Dragana Perišić
Contact Dragana Perišić

Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Kragujevac , Kragujevac , Serbia

Jelena Jovanović
Jelena Jovanović

Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Kragujevac , Kragujevac , Serbia

Abstract

In this paper, the ranking of selected software packages for project management is performed. The aim is to rank project management software packages based on predefined criteria and to show that MCDM methods can yield varying results even when analyzing the same problem. This shows that MCDM can be a useful tool for simplifying the observed problem, but the final decision should be given by the decision-maker.

When making a decision using quantitative MCDM methods, it is necessary to know the criteria weights and input data that will be used for comparing alternatives. In this paper, AHP, CRITIC and CILOS methods for determining criteria weights and VIKOR, TOPSIS, COPRAS, SAW and GRA methods for alternative ranking will be used.

A brief literary review of the chosen methods will be presented, followed by a comparative analysis of the software packages. Finally, tabular and graphic representations of the alternative rankings obtained from the different methods are provided.

References

Akbar, S., Ahmad, I., Khan, R., Lopes, I. O., & Ullah, R. (2022). Multi-Skills Resource Constrained and Personality Traits Based Project Scheduling. IEEE Access, 10, 131419–131429. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2022.3229867
Akbar, S., Ullah, R., Khan, R., Asghar, I., Zubair, M., & Zheng, Z. (2023). A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for Software Project Management Tool Selection. In Proceedings of the 2023 9th International Conference on Computer Technology Applications (pp. 184–191). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3605423.3605454
Al-Aomar, R. (2010). A combined AHP-ENTROPY method for deriving subjective and objective criteria weights. The International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practice, 17(1), 12–24.
Ayan, B., Abacıoğlu, S., & Basilio, M. P. (2023). A Comprehensive Review of the Novel Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Information, 14(5), 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050285
Chakraborty, S. (2022). TOPSIS and Modified TOPSIS: A comparative analysis. Decision Analytics Journal, 2, 100021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2021.100021

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.