Multiple Criteria Construction Management Decisions Considering Relations Between Criteria / Daugiatiksliai Statybos Valdymo Sprendimai Atsižvelgiant Į Rodiklių Tarpusavio Priklausomybę

Abstract

Decision making in construction management has been always complicated especially if there were more than one criterion under consideration. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) has been often applied for complex decisions in construction when a lot of criteria were involved. Traditional MCDM methods, however, operate with independent and conflicting criteria. While in every day problems a decision maker often faces interactive and interrelated criteria. Accordingly, the need of improving and supplementing the methodology of compromise decisions arose. It was proposed to supplement TOPSIS (Technique for the Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) method and integrate the Mahalanobis distance in the usual algorythm of TOPSIS. Mahalanobis distance measure offered an option to take the correlations between the criteria into considerations while making the decision. A case study of building redevelopment in Lithuanian rural areas was presented that demonstrated the application of the proposed methodology. The case study proved that the proposed TOPSIS-M (TOPSIS applying Mahalanobis distance measure) method could have substantial influence in carrying the proper decision.

Novel Integrated Multi-Criteria Model for Supplier Selection: Case Study Construction Company

“…Supplier selection, in any phase of the construction, presents very important part in this field [6]. Decision making in construction management is, according to Antuchevičiene et al [62], always very complex and complicated, especially when more than one criterion is considered, which is often the case.…”

Selection of Rational Dispute Resolution Method by Applying New Step‐wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (Swara)

“…d) The methods based on a reference point or goal such as the Reference Point Method which is used in TOPSIS (Hwang and Yoon 1981;Antuchevičienė et al 2010), VIKOR (Opricovic and Tzeng 2004), COPRAS-G , MOORA (Brauers and Zavadskas 2006) and Goal Programming (Lee 1972). The examples of maximising dispute resolution attributes: assurance of confidentiality, satisfaction of parties with dispute outcome, freedom of parties to handle the dispute, preservation of amicable interrelations, etc., and examples of minimising attributes: expedition of dispute examination, price of dispute resolution, etc.).…”

A Comparative Study of the Capability of Alternative Mixed Integer Programming Formulations

“…However, some techniques better suit to particular decision problems than others do (Mergias et al 2007;Dagdeviren et al 2009). The most popular methods are scoring models (Nelson 1986), AHP (Ecer 2014;Ivlev et al 2014;Myronidis et al 2016;Singh, Nachtnebel 2016), Analytic Network Process (ANP), Axiomatic Design (AD) (Khandekar et al 2015), Utility Models (Munoz, Sheng 1995), TOPSIS (Liu 2009;Antuchevičiene et al 2010;Maimoun et al 2016), Elimination and Choice Translating Reality (ELECTRE) (Wang, Triantaphyllou 2008) and Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) (Kabak, Dağdeviren 2014). These MCDM methods can be classified in many ways.…”