Relative effectiveness of project delivery and contract strategies

被引:92
作者
Oyetunji, AA
Anderson, SD
机构
[1] Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc, Houston, TX 77079 USA
[2] Texas A&M Univ, Dept Civil Engn, College Stn, TX 77843 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT-ASCE | 2006年 / 132卷 / 01期
关键词
D O I
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:1(3)
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Project delivery systems define the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in a project. They also establish an execution framework in terms of sequencing of design, procurement, and construction. The decision made in the selection of a project delivery system for a project impacts all phases of execution of the project and greatly impacts the efficiency of project execution. Such decisions should be facilitated by thorough analysis. Structured, quantitative decision analysis processes have been shown to have several benefits over the simplistic, holistic, and informal processes that typically characterize subjective evaluations. However, a dearth of quantitative values of project delivery systems established and validated through research has invariably left project managers with no alternative than to make project delivery selection decisions on the basis of subjective evaluations. Development of the needed quantitative values for application in a decision analysis process would greatly enhance the quality of the decision-making process and provide a defensible rationale for selection of project delivery systems for capital projects. This paper presents research findings that provide the needed quantitative values in this area. Based on the quantitative values defined here, interested parties can develop and implement quantitative evaluation of project delivery alternatives to identify the optimal solution for a given project. Multicriteria decision analysis was found to be the suitable approach for a quantitative, analytical evaluation of project delivery systems. Consequently, the quantitative values presented in this paper were developed in accordance with the requirements of the multicriteria decision analysis technique known as simple multiattribute rating technique with swing weights (SMARTS). Utilizing the quantitative values presented here and applying the analysis technique of SMARTS, a decision support tool has been developed and validated for the Construction Industry Institute. The decision support tool is presently being utilized by member companies of the Construction Industry Institute that were privy to its development. With the presentation of the quantitative values in this paper, other parties interested in developing similar tools would benefit from the research results presented here.
引用
收藏
页码:3 / 13
页数:11
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1996, DECISION AIDS SELECT
[2]   COMPARISON OF WEIGHTING JUDGMENTS IN MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY MEASUREMENT [J].
BORCHERDING, K ;
EPPEL, T ;
VONWINTERFELDT, D .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1991, 37 (12) :1603-1619
[3]  
*CONSTR IND I, 2001, 1651 U TEX AUST AUST
[4]  
*CONSTR IND I, 2003, IMPL RES 1652
[5]   A multiattribute utility analysis of alternatives for the disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium [J].
Dyer, JS ;
Edmunds, T ;
Butler, JC ;
Jia, JM .
OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 1998, 46 (06) :749-762
[6]   MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING, MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY-THEORY - THE NEXT 10 YEARS [J].
DYER, JS ;
FISHBURN, PC ;
STEUER, RE ;
WALLENIUS, J ;
ZIONTS, S .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1992, 38 (05) :645-654
[7]   SMARTS AND SMARTER - IMPROVED SIMPLE METHODS FOR MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY MEASUREMENT [J].
EDWARDS, W ;
BARRON, FH .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1994, 60 (03) :306-325
[8]   HOW TO USE MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY MEASUREMENT FOR SOCIAL DECISIONMAKING [J].
EDWARDS, W .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS, 1977, 7 (05) :326-340
[9]  
French S., 1983, MULTIOBJECTIVE DECIS
[10]  
Goodwin P., 1991, DECISION ANAL MANAGE