Criteria for Evaluating Project Evaluation Techniques
Christopher A. Nash, David Pearce, John K. Stanley
Abstract
Christopher A. Nash, David Pearce, John K. Stanley
Abstract
This article stresses the underlying value content of any project evaluation technique. Value bases of conventional cost-benefit and matrix evaluation techniques are considered and their underlying similarity is noted. Although no set of criteria for choosing a technique can be proved to be correct, the article offers four criteria which the authors consider vital. It is suggested that a good evaluation technique should in general reflect individual preferences; be publicly accountable; be operational; and be cognizant of systems' effect. Whatever technique is used should allow the decision-maker and interested persons to identify its underlying value judgments and examine how evaluation results change with changes in value judgments. 10 references. (Author)
OpenAlex reports 28 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This article stresses the underlying value content of any project evaluation technique. Value bases of conventional cost-benefit and matrix evaluation techniques are considered and their underlying similarity is noted. Although no set of criteria for choosing a technique can be proved to be correct, the article offers four criteria which the authors consider vital. It is suggested that a good evaluation technique should in general reflect individual preferences; be publicly accountable; be operational; and be cognizant of systems' effect. Whatever technique is used should allow the decision-maker and interested persons to identify its underlying value judgments and examine how evaluation results change with changes in value judgments. 10 references. (Author)
Key concepts: Computer science