Abstract
Appropriate project delivery model is one of the key factors affecting a project’s success. Most decision-making methods of project delivery are based on vague qualitative indicators. However, a numerical scale is usually unable to effectively and accurately reflect the preferences of decision-makers. Scholars have found that applying the fuzzy set theory and using the fuzzy ordered weighted geometric averaging (FOWGA) operator for project delivery system (PDS) decision could reduce the judgment information losing to a certain extent and improve the objectivity and fairness of group decision-making. In this study, we further addressed the decision method and procedure for PDS decision by using the FOWGA operator and demonstrated the mode selection method as well. The results demonstrated that the method can overcome the current drawback of subjectivity of the project delivery decision method, better solve the decision-making information losing problem during assembling process and further reflect the priority of the PDS so as to improve the efficiency of the group decision.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Al Khalil MI (2002) Selecting the appropriate project delivery method using AHP. Int J Proj Manag 20(6):469–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00032-1
Alhazmi T, McCaffer R (2000) Project procurement system selection model. J Constr Eng Manag 126(3):176–184. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2000)126:3(176)
Arnold K, Madan MG (1985) Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic: theory and applications. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York
Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Set Syst 20(1):87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3
Chan CTW (2007) Fuzzy procurement selection model for construction projects. Constr Manag Econ 25(6):611–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190701209933
Chan APC, Ho DCK, Tam CM (2001a) Design and build project success factors: multivariate analysis. J Constr Eng Manag 127(2):93–100. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2001)127:2(93)
Chan APC, Yung EHK, Lam PTI, Tam CM, Cheung SO (2001b) Application of Delphi method in selection of procurement systems for construction projects. Constr Manag Econ 19(7):699–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190110066128
Chen YQ, Lu H, Lu W, Zhang N (2010) Analysis of project delivery systems in Chinese construction industry with data envelopment analysis (DEA). Eng Constr Arch Manag 17(6):598–614. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981011090215
Chen YQ, Liu JY, Li B, Lin B (2011) Project delivery system selection of construction projects in China. Expert Syst Appl 38(5):5456–5462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.008
Cheung SO, Lam TI, Wan YW, Lam KC (2001) Improving objectivity in procurement selection. J Manag Eng 17(3):132–139. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(2001)17:3(132)
Groton JP, Smith GA (1998) Feature: weighing the options. J Manag Eng 14(6):69–72. http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X
Gransberg DD, Dillon WD, Reynolds L, Boyd J (1999) Quantitative analysis of partnered project performance. J Constr Eng Manag 125(3):161–166. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1999)125:3(161)
Herrera-Viedma E, Cordón O, Luque M, Lopez AG, Muñoz AM (2003) A model of fuzzy linguistic IRS based on multi-granular linguistic information. Int J Approx Reason 34(2–3):221–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2003.07.009
Hong HK, Kim JS, Kim T, Leem B (2008) The effect of knowledge on system integration project performance. Ind Manag Data Syst 108(3):385–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570810858787
Ibbs W, Chih YY (2011) Alternative methods for choosing an appropriate project delivery system (PDS). Facilities 29(13/14):527–541. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771111178418
Ibbs CW, Kwak YH, Ng T, Odabasi A (2003) Project delivery systems and project change: quantitative analysis. J Constr Eng Manag 129(4):382–387. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2003)129:4(382)
Konchar M, Sanvido V (1998) Comparison of US project delivery systems. J Constr Eng Manag 124(6):435–444. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1998)124:6(435)
Kumaraswamy MM, Dissanayaka SM (2001) Developing a decision support system for building project procurement. Build Environ 36(3):337–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1323(00)00011-1
Laedre O, Austeng K, Haugen T, Klakegg O (2006) Procurement routes in public building and construction projects. J Constr Eng Manag 132(7):689–696. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2006)132:7(689)
Li H, Arditi D, Wang Z (2013) Factors that affect transaction costs in construction projects. J Constr Eng Manag 139(1):60–68. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000573
Ling FYY, Liu M (2004) Using neural network to predict performance of design-build projects in Singapore. Build Environ 39(10):1263–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.02.008
Ling FYY, Chan SL, Chong E, Ee LP (2004) Predicting performance of design-build and design-bid-build projects. J Constr Eng Manag 130(1):75–83. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2004)130:1(75)
Liu B, Huo T, Wang X, Shen Q, Chen Y (2013) The decision model of the intuitionistic fuzzy group bid evaluation for urban infrastructure projects considering social costs. Can J Civ Eng 40(3):263–273. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2012-0283
Liu B, Huo T, Shen Q, Yang Z, Meng J, Xue B (2014) Which owner characteristics are key factors affecting project delivery system decision making? Empirical analysis based on the rough set theory. J Manag Eng 31(4):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ME.1943-5479.0000298
Lo SC, Chao Y (2007) Efficiency assessment of road project delivery models. In: AIP conference proceedings. AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2835911
Love PED, Skitmore M, Earl G (1998) Selecting a suitable procurement method for a building project. Constr Manag Econ 16(2):221–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461998372501
Luu DT, Ng ST, Chen SE (2003a) Parameters governing the selection of procurement system—an empirical survey. Eng Constr Arch Manag 10(3):209–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980310478458
Luu DT, Ng ST, Chen SE (2003b) A case-based procurement advisory system for construction. Adv Eng Softw 34(7):429–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0965-9978(03)00043-7
Luu DT, Ng ST, Chen SE (2005) Formulating procurement selection criteria through case-based reasoning approach. J Comput Civ Eng 19(3):269–276. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0887-3801(2005)19:3(269)
Mafakheri F, Dai L, Slezak D, Nasiri F (2007) Project delivery system selection under un-certainty: multicriteria multilevel decision aid model. J Manag Eng 23(4):200–206. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0742-597X(2007)23:4(200)
Mahdi IM, Alreshaid K (2005) Decision support system for selecting the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Int J Proj Manag 23(7):564–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.05.007
Masterman J, Duff A (1994) The selection of building procurement systems by client organizations. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual ARCOM conference. Loughborough University of Technology
Mollaoglu-Korkmaz S, Swarup L, Riley D (2013) Delivering sustainable, high-performance buildings: influence of project delivery methods on integration and project outcomes. J Manag Eng 29(1):71–78. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000114
Mostafavi A, Karamouz M (2010) Selecting appropriate project delivery system: fuzzy approach with risk analysis. J Constr Eng Manag 136(8):923–930. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)CO.1943-7862.0000190
Naoum SG (1994) Critical analysis of time and cost of management and traditional contracts. J Constr Eng Manag 120(4):687–705. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1994)120:4(687)
Ng ST, Luu DT, Chen SE, Lam KC (2002) Fuzzy membership functions of procurement selection criteria. Constr Manag Econ 20(3):285–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190210121288
Ng T, Luu C, Skitmore M (2012) Capitalising experiential knowledge for guiding construction procurement selection. Austr J Constr Econ Build 5(1):32–40. https://doi.org/10.5130/ajceb.v5i1.2941
Ojiako U, Johansen E, Greenwood D (2008) A qualitative re-construction of project measurement criteria. Ind Manag Data Syst 108(3):405–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570810858796
Oyetunji AA, Anderson SD (2006) Relative effectiveness of project delivery and contract strategies. J Constr Eng Manag 132(1):3–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2006)132:1(3)
Ribeiro FL (2001) Project delivery system selection: a case-based reasoning framework. Log Inf Manag 14(5/6):367–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006248
Rwelamila PD, Meyer C (1999) Appropriate or default project procurement systems? Cost Eng 41(9):40–44
Skitmore R, Marsden D (1988) Which procurement system? Towards a universal procurement selection technique. Constr Manag Econ 6(1):71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446198800000008
Songer AD, Molenaar KR (1996) Selecting design-build: public and private sector owner attitudes. J Manag Eng 12(6):47–53. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(1996)12:6(47)
Tan C, Chen X (2016) Generalized archimedean intuitionistic fuzzy averaging aggregation operators and their application to multicriteria decision-making. Int J Inf Technol Decis 15(2):311–352. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500048
Torra V (2004) OWA operators in data modeling and reidentification. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 12(5):652–660. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2004.834814
Touran A, Gransberg DD, Molenaar KR, Ghavamifar K (2011) Selection of project delivery method in transit: drivers and objectives. J Manag Eng 27(1):21–27. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000027
Xu Z (2007) Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(6):1179–1187. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2006.890678
Xu Z (2016) Additive intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators based on fuzzy measure. Int J Uncertain Fuzzy 24(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021848851650001X
Xu Z, Yager RR (2006) Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J Gen Syst 35(4):417–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081070600574353
Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operations in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18(1):183–190
Yager RR (1995) An approach to ordinal decision making. Int J Approx Reason 12(3):237–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/0888-613X(94)00035-2
Yager RR, Kreinovich V (1999) Decision making under interval probabilities. Int J Approx Reason 22(3):195–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0888-613X(99)00028-6
Zhou W, Xu Z (2017) Extreme intuitionistic fuzzy weighted aggregation operators and their applications in optimism and pessimism decision-making processes. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 32(1):1129–1138. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-16516
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to appreciate the reviewers for all helpful comments, and to thank the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant Nos. 331711105, 331711203) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 51708381) for their supports.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Author Xun Liu declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Hong Liu declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Communicated by V. Loia.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, X., Liu, H. Application of fuzzy ordered weighted geometric averaging (FOWGA) operator for project delivery system decision-making. Soft Comput 23, 13297–13307 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-03872-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-03872-0