Modelling the Structures of Stakeholder Preferences with Modified DEMATEL Method

  • Krzysztof S. TargielEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1081)


Contemporary views on the evaluation of project success are directed towards managing stakeholder expectations. Those expectations are based on identification of stakeholders needs. Different groups of stakeholders can have different power and consequently different influence on project. Determining they influence, we can establish needs priorities for all the project. As we claim, priorities are consequence of stakeholders preferences. Determination of structure of stakeholder preferences, can be helpful in managing the project, and thus in achieving its success. The aim of the research is to develop a method for determining the structure of the preferences different groups of stakeholders and then calculate priorities. The problem will be solved with modified DEMATEL method.


Project management DEMATEL method Stakeholders preferences 


  1. 1.
    Achimugu, P., Selamat, A., Ibrahim, R., Mahrin, M.N.: A systematic literature review of software requirements prioritization research. Inf. Soft. Technol. 56(6), 568–585 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benndorf, J., Yueksel, C., Shishvan, M., Rosenberg, H., Thielemann, T., Mittmann, R., Lohsträter, O., Lindig, M., Minnecker, C., Donner, R., Naworyta, W.: RTRO-Coal: real-time resource-reconciliation and optimization for exploitation of coal deposits. Minerals 5, 546–569 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berander, P., Andrews, A.A.: Requirements prioritization. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 69–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    BKCASE Editorial Board: The Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), v. 1.8. R.D. Adcock (EIC). The Trustees of the Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ. Accessed 29 Mar 2017
  5. 5.
    Dominiak, C., Górecka, D., Trzaskalik, T., Sitarz, S., Targiel, K.,Trzaskalik, T. and Wachowicz, T.: Wykorzystanie punktów referencyjnych. In: T. Trzaskalik, T. (ed.) Wielokryterialne wspomaganie decyzji. Metody i zastosowania, Warszawa, pp. 126–152 (2014). (in Polish)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO 21500: Guidance on Project Management. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, C.-H., Tzeng, G.-H., Lee, M.-H.: Improving tourism policy implementation - the use of hybrid MCDM models. Tour. Manag. 33, 413–426 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nowak, M., Targiel, K.S., Błaszczyk, B., Kania, S.: Stakeholders in mining projects. In: Project Management Development - Practice and Perspectives, pp. 66–74 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Project Management Institute: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 5th edn. Project Management Institute Inc., Newtown Square (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Targiel, K.S.: Modeling the structures of stakeholder preferences. In: Project Management Development - Practice and Perspectives, pp. 286–292 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tzeng, G.-H., Chiang, C.H., Li, C.-W.: Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Syst. Appl. 32, 1028–1044 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tzeng, G.-H., Huang, J.J.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. CRC Press, London (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Informatics and CommunicationUniversity of Economics in KatowiceKatowicePoland

Personalised recommendations