Martin, H; Koylass, J and Welch, F (2018) An exploration of the consistency limits of the analytical hierarchy process and its impact on contractor selection. International Journal of Construction Management, 18(1), pp. 14-25. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
As project failure risk is reduced with the inclusion of additional factors when choosing a contractor, so too is client risk. As an approach to multi-criteria decision-making, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is explored to determine whether the traditional AHP (consistency ratio 0.1) and the weakly consistent AHP (consistency ratio 0.5–0.1), currently used for contractor selection, produce the same result. A case study comparing both methods reveals that the top-ranked contractor was the same while the ranking of the remaining contractors were different. Because choosing the right contractor can mean the difference between project success and failure, the consistency rule for the traditional AHP should be used for contractor selection, and not the weakly consistent AHP, especially as inconsistency increases random outcomes. This finding becomes important if the first-choice contractor opts out of a contract or is terminated by the client and a suitable second choice must be made from the original bids.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | AHP; contractor selection; multi-criteria decision; weak consistency |
| Index terms: | project failure, contractor selection, analytical hierarchy process, multi-criteria decision-making, project success, exploration, case study |
| Subjects: | project completion, decision-making and optimization, tendering, decision analysis, project management theory and practice, data collection methods, environmental resource management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Research Practice, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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