Proje Yönetim Yazılımlarının Değerlendirilmesi: SWARA ve CODAS Yöntemleriyle Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz

Öz

Proje yönetim yazılımlarının değerlendirilmesi, birçok kriter ve alternatifin varlığı nedeniyle karmaşık bir süreçtir. Bu araştırma, bu süreci kolaylaştırmak amacıyla SWARA ve CODAS gibi çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerini uygulamaktadır. SWARA yaklaşımı, profesyonel proje yöneticilerinin geri bildirimlerine dayanarak kriterlerin önem derecesini belirlemek için kullanılırken, CODAS tekniği farklı proje yönetim yazılımlarının etkinliğini değerlendirmek ve sıralamak için kullanılmaktadır. Kullanıcı arayüzü, entegrasyon ve ölçeklenebilirlik gibi parametreler değerlendirmede kritik öneme sahiptir. Araştırma sonuçları, ClickUp, Hive ve Wrike yazılımlarının en yüksek performansa sahip araçlar olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu araçlar, gelişmiş entegrasyon işlevleri ve ölçeklenebilirlik özellikleri sayesinde diğerlerinden ayrılmaktadır. Öte yandan Basecamp, bazı özelliklerin eksikliği nedeniyle son sırada yer almıştır. Bu çalışma, proje yönetimi alanındaki bilgi birikimine katkıda bulunmakta ve SWARA ile CODAS yöntemlerinin yazılım seçiminde uygulanabilirliğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca yazılım geliştiricilere, kullanıcı ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için hangi özelliklere odaklanmaları gerektiği konusunda ipuçları vermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Proje Yönetimi Yazılımları
• CODAS
• SWARA

Evaluating Project Management Software: A Comparative Analysis Using SWARA and CODAS Methods

Öz

The evaluation of project management software is an intricate process because of the existence of several criteria and alternatives. This research applies multi-criteria decision-making methods, such as SWARA and CODAS, to make this process easier. The SWARA approach is used to determine the importance of the criteria based on the feedback of professional project managers, while the CODAS technique is utilized to evaluate and rank the efficiency of different project management software solutions. Parameters like user interface, integration, and scalability are critically important in the evaluation. The outcomes indicate that ClickUp, Hive, and Wrike are the tools with the highest level of performance. These instruments differ from others owing to the fact that they have sophisticated integration functionalities, as well as scalability. On the contrary, Basecamp took the last place because of the absence of some features. This study adds to the body of knowledge in the area of project management and illustrates the applicability of the SWARA and CODAS methods in software selection. Furthermore, it gives software developers clues about which features they should concentrate on in order to satisfy user requirements.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Project management softwares
• CODAS
• SWARA

Destekleyen Kurum

The authors acknowledge that they received no external funding in support of this research.

Etik Beyan

We accept that this study is an original research article prepared in accordance with scientific ethical rules and scientific method, it has not been published or presented in any other journal, the ethical and scientific responsibility belongs to all authors of the article. After the article is sent to the journal, we accept that at no stage, no author cannot be added and deleted, except for the authors specified in the 'Article Application Form,' authors' order cannot be changed, and that all publishing rights of the article belong to Journal of Yaşar University

Kaynakça

1. Attaran, M., & Attaran, S. (2002). Collaborative computing technology: The hot new managing tool. Journal of Management Development, 21(8), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710210437572
2. Bertram, M., Schaarschmidt, M., & Von Kortzfleisch, H. F. O. (2012). Customization of product software: Insight from an extensive is literature review. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 389 AICT, 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35142-6_15
3. Borky, J. M., & Bradley, T. H. (2019). Protecting Information with Cybersecurity. In Effective Model-Based Systems Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95669-5
4. Capterra. (n.d.). Project management software shortlist. Capterra. https://www.capterra.com/project-management-software/shortlist/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
5. Crawford, T., Duong, S., Fueston, R., Lawani, A., Owoade, S., Uzoka, A., Parizi, R. M., & Yazdinejad, A. (2023). AI in Software Engineering: A Survey on Project Management Applications. ArXiv (Cornell University). http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15224
6. Eve, A. (2007). Development of project management systems. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(2), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850710732406
7. Ferreira, M. E. & Tereso, A. P. (2014). Software Tools for Project Management – Focus on Collaborative Management. New Perspectives in Information Systems and Technologies, 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05948-8
8. Ferreira, J. M., Rodriguez, F. D., Santos, A., Dieste, O., Acuna, S. T., & Juristo, N. (2023). Impact of Usability Mechanisms: A Family of Experiments on Efficiency, Effectiveness and User Satisfaction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 49(1), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2022.3149586

9. Geetha, S., Narayanamoorthy, S., & Kang, D. (2020). Extended hesitant fuzzy SWARA techniques to examine the criteria weights and VIKOR method for ranking alternatives. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2261(October). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0017049
10. Ghosh, A., Nashaat, M., & Miller, J. (2019). The current state of software license renewals in the I.T. industry. Information and Software Technology, 108(August 2018), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.01.001
11. Keršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (Swara). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12
12. Kerzner, H. (2023). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley.
13. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antuchevičienė, J. (2016). A New Combinative Distance-based Assessment (CODAS) Method for MultiCriteria Decision-making. VILNIUS TECH.
14. Kostalova, J., & Tetrevova, L. (2014). Project Management and its Tools in Practice in the Czech Republic. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 678–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.087
15. Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Cavallaro, F., & Khalifah, Z. (2015). Sustainable and renewable Energy: An overview of the application of multiple criteria decision making techniques and approaches. Sustainability (Switzerland), 7(10), 13947–13984. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71013947
16. Mustajoki, J., & Marttunen, M. (2017). Comparison of multi-criteria decision analytical software for supporting environmental planning processes. Environmental Modelling and Software, 93, 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.02.026
17. Özkan, D., & Mishra, A. (2019). Agile Project Management Tools: A Brief Comprative View. Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 19(4), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.2478/cait-2019-0033
18. Pérez-Dominguez, L., Durán, S. N. A., López, R. R., Pérez-Olguin, I. J. C., Luviano-Cruz, D., & Gómez, J. A. H. (2021). Assessment urban transport service and pythagorean fuzzy sets CODAS method: A case of study of ciudad juárez. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031281
19. PMI (2021). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (7th Edition).
20. Popović, M., Popović, G., & Karabašević, D. (2021). Determination of the importance of evaluation criteria during the process of recruitment and selection of personnel based on the application of the SWARA method. Ekonomika, 67(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5937/ekonomika2104001p
21. Pratama, M. A. T., & Cahyadi, A. T. (2020). Effect of User Interface and User Experience on Application Sales. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 879(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/879/1/012133
22. Sane, S. (2019). Effect of using project management tools and techniques on SMEs performance in developing country context. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(3), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-11-2018-0251
23. Silvius, A. J. G., & Silvius, C. M. (2015). Exploring Functionality of Mobile Applications for Project Management. Procedia Computer Science, 64, 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.498
24. Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Karabasevic, D., Turskis, Z., & Keršulienė, V. (2017). New group decision-making ARCAS approach based on the integration of the SWARA and the ARAS methods adapted for negotiations. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(4), 599–618. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2017.1327455
25. Štilić, A., & Puška, A. (2023). Integrating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods with Sustainable Engineering: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices. Eng, 4(2), 1536–1549. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng4020088
26. Sutawidjaya, A. H., & Nawangsari, L. C. (2020). Integrated Project Management Planning and Event Management in Service Industry. 120(Icmeb 2019), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200205.012
27. Thomas, I., & Nejmeh, B. A. (1992). Definitions of tool integration for environments. IEEE Software, 9(2), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.120599
28. Turner, J. R. (2016). Gower Handbook of Project Management. Routledge.
29. Williams, P. R. (2015). Visual project management. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/visual-project-management-visual-elements-9862
30. Zavadskas, E. K., Govindan, K., Antucheviciene, J., & Turskis, Z. (2016). Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: A review of applications for sustainability issues. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja , 29(1), 857–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2016.1237302