4.5 Article

Selecting Appropriate Project Delivery System: Fuzzy Approach with Risk Analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 136, Issue 8, Pages 923-930

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000190

Keywords

Project delivery systems; Fuzzy multiattribute decision making; Fuzzy TOPSIS; Risk attitude; Risk analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The selection of an appropriate project delivery system that suits all project and owner needs is one of the key decisions to a successful project. Therefore, this decision should be made based on thorough analysis. In this paper, a fuzzy multiattribute decision-making (FMADM) model is developed. The model accounts for uncertainties and imprecision in the decision space as well as fuzziness in the nature of the decision attributes. The model utilizes fuzzy decision-making approach in order to evaluate the membership function corresponding to the utility of each project delivery alternative. Project delivery system alternatives are ranked using fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method based on their utility membership functions and by evaluating the distance of each project delivery alternative from fuzzy ideal solutions. In the TOPSIS method, alternatives are ranked based on their closeness coefficient (CC). In addition, the risk attitude of the decision maker is considered in the model by using derived utility membership functions corresponding to the risk attitude of the decision maker. The model is applied to a petrochemical project as a case study. In the case study, the model outcome that ranked Turnkey system as the best system conforms to the lessons learned by the decision maker from several past projects. Moreover, sensitivity analysis is done in the case study. The results show the significant value of the FMADM model for selecting appropriate project delivery system for projects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available