Bai, L; Xie, X; Sun, Y; Qu, X and Han, X (2025) Assessing project criticality in project portfolio: A vulnerability modeling approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(5), pp. 2890-2919. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Assessing project criticality in a project portfolio (PP) is of great practical significance to improve robustness from damage. While project criticality assessment has increased diversity in approaches, the understanding of vulnerable project impacts is still limited. To promote a better understanding of assessing project criticality, a vulnerability measurement model is constructed. Design/methodology/approach: First, integrating the tasks, projects and corresponding relationships among them, a project portfolio network (PPN) is constructed. Second, the project's vulnerability is measured by combining the topological structure and functional attributes. Third, project criticality is assessed by the vulnerability measurement results. Lastly, the proposed model is applied in a numerical example to illustrate its suitability and effectiveness. Findings: For academia, this study provides a novel perspective on project vulnerability measurement and expands project criticality assessment tools. For practitioners, the straightforward model provides an effective tool for assessing project criticality and contributes to enhancing project portfolio management (PPM). Originality/value: The impact of the task on the project is considered in this study. Topological structure and functional attributes are also integrated for measuring project vulnerability due to the impact of random attacks in an uncertain environment, providing a new perspective on the requirements of project criticality assessment and the measurement of project vulnerability.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | criticality assessment; project portfolio; random attack; synergistic degree; vulnerability measurement |
| Index terms: | suitability, methodology, vulnerability, practitioner, modelling, effectiveness, academia, portfolio management |
| Subjects: | practitioner, analytical methods, economic analysis, research methods, environmental hazards, performance management, educational institutions, design criteria |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Education, Engineering Principles, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here