Cai, J; Li, Z; Dou, Y; Teng, Y and Yuan, M (2023) Contractor selection for green buildings based on the fuzzy kano model and TOPSIS: A developer satisfaction perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(10), pp. 5073-5108. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Contractor selection is critical in green buildings (GBs) since the preferred contractor has the responsibility to achieve construction sustainability as well as relationship sustainability. The developer satisfaction reflecting requirements can boost the cooperative relationship among stakeholders and act as an evaluation scale for the success of GB projects, which needs to be emphasized in the selection process but little involved in the existing research. This study explores improving GB contractor (GBC) selection by integrating developer satisfaction into selection procedures. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic framework of GBC selection including twenty-five criteria from literature review and experts survey is firstly constructed. Both tactical and strategic criteria are further classified into Kano categories (must-be, one-dimensional, and attractive categories) using the fuzzy Kano model (FKM), and weighted by the developer satisfaction index. The model proposed by this study combining FKM and TOPSIS divides the selection process into the filtration phase and selection phase by Kano categories. The proposed model is finally verified through performance comparison among multiple methods in a case. Findings: Selection criteria are measured linearly and nonlinearly, showing criteria having nonlinear satisfaction change accounts for two-thirds of all. Criteria at tactical level tend to be must-be or one-dimensional categories for the developer, and most strategic criteria are classed as the attractive category, indicating that adding strategic criteria is necessary for long-term cooperation. The proposed model, using developer satisfaction to improve the selection process, ensures the selected GBC to be the most satisfactory with requirements of the developer and makes the performance of GBCs easily distinguishable. Originality/value: This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge for promoting relationship sustainability by supplementing an integrated model with emphasis on developer satisfaction in GBC selection, so as to establish a good initial foundation due to the match between performances of GBCs and needs of developers. It not only helps maximize developer satisfaction in GBC selection by applying satisfaction to pre-construction management, but also instructs GBCs to prioritize performance improvements. The framework is also conducive for developers to classify selection criteria and select other participants (like green suppliers) from the satisfaction perspective in GBs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contractor selection; developer satisfaction; fuzzy kano model; green building; topsis |
| Index terms: | survey, literature review, cooperation, body of knowledge, green building, methodology, pre-construction, topsis, satisfaction, integrated model, contractor selection, selection criteria, performance improvement |
| Subjects: | performance measurement, design practice, tendering, research methods, decision-making and optimization, data collection methods, knowledge management, data analysis and analytics, project delivery, analytical methods, psychology |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Project Management, Information Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here