2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
308
0
10

Year Published

2011
2011
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 555 publications
(318 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
308
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…In this paper, Buckley's [17] fuzzy AHP method is used. The steps of fuzzy AHP are summarized as following [19]- [22]:…”
Section: The Proposed Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this paper, Buckley's [17] fuzzy AHP method is used. The steps of fuzzy AHP are summarized as following [19]- [22]:…”
Section: The Proposed Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the evaluation procedure, the linguistic terms given in Table I [ 19] are used. Geometric mean is used to aggregate expert opinions.…”
Section: The Proposed Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In AHP, all criteria or parameters are assigned with the weight score that shows the importance of each criterion. The AHP approach has been widely adopted in the built environment fields as decision-making tool [25], [34]- [36]. Existing performance schemes and rating tools such as LEED, BHHI and BSCI also adopted the process of AHP to develop hierarchy or rating tool [35], [37].…”
Section: Application Of Analytical Hierarchy Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An approach for solving qualitative multi-criteria analysis by fuzzy pair-wise comparison is presented by Deng (Deng 1999). Hsieh et al present a fuzzy multi-criteria analysis approach for selecting planning and design alternatives in a public office building (Hsieh, et al 2004). Wang et al applied incomplete linguistic preference relations to evaluate tender selection criteria and provide decision matrices for making pair-wise comparisons ).…”
Section: Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%