Zhang, M; Xue, X; Luo, T; Li, M and Tang, X (2024) The supportability evaluation of cross-regional major infrastructure projects based on the combination weighting of the game theory-cloud model. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 31(9), pp. 3679-3705. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to establish an evaluation method for cross-regional major infrastructure project (CRMIP) supportability. The focus is to identify evaluation indicators from a complexity perspective and develop an evaluation model using qualitative and quantitative methods. Case studies are carried out to verify the reliability of the evaluation model, thereby providing theoretical and practical guidance for CRMIP operations and maintenance (O&M). Design/methodology/approach: Guided by the idea of complexity management, the evaluation indicators of CRMIP supportability are determined through literature analysis, actual O&M experience and expert interviews. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, consisting of sequential relationship analysis, entropy weighting, game theory and cloud model, is developed to determine the indicator weights. Finally, the evaluation model is used to evaluate the supportability of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB), which tests the rationality of the model and reveals its supportability level. Findings: The results demonstrate that CRMIPs' supportability is influenced by 6 guideline-level and 18 indicator-level indicators, and the priority of the influencing factors includes "organization", "technology", "system", "human resources", "material system", and "funding." As for specific indicators, "organizational objectives", "organizational structure and synergy mechanism", and "technical systems and procedures" are critical to CRMIPs' O&M supportability. The results also indicate that the supportability level of the HZMB falls between good and excellent. Originality/value: Under the guidance of complexity management thinking, this study proposes a supportability evaluation framework based on the combined weights of game theory and the cloud model. This study provides a valuable reference and scientific judgment for the health and safety of CRMIPs' O&M.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cloud model; complexity management; cross-regional major infrastructure project; game theory; operation and maintenance; supportability evaluation; questionaire survey |
| Index terms: | game theory, survey, rationality, evaluation, health and safety, organizational structure, operation and maintenance, entropy, interview, complexity, quantitative method, methodology, human resource, falls, judgment, case study, Hong Kong, influencing factor, synergy, supportability, infrastructure project, funding |
| Subjects: | Geography, health safety and environment, management, health risk and incident analysis, research methods, maintenance engineering, decision-making and reasoning, infrastructure and transport systems, systems engineering, thermal systems, partnership management, sociology, reliability engineering, dispute resolution, data collection methods, risk assessment, data analysis and analytics, decision models, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Human Resources, Organizational Design |
| 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