Rueda-Benavides, J; Khalafalla, M; Miller, M and Gransberg, D (2023) Cross-asset prioritization model for transportation projects using multi-attribute utility theory: A case study. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(16), pp. 2746-2755. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), enacted by the US Congress in 2012, establishes seven national infrastructure performance goals that must be considered during funding allocation procedures by state transportation agencies (STAs). These goals' wide range of aspects creates situations where STAs have to deal with conflicting objectives without formal trade-off mechanisms, forcing them to make investments that might be difficult to justify to stakeholders. Moreover, STAs strive to create standard performance metrics that allow the comparison of investment alternatives among different groups of assets. This paper presents a case study on applying a Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) model to make trade-offs among conflicting objectives in different types of transportation construction projects. The case study was conducted on ten construction projects executed by the Iowa Department of Transportation. The case study shows how the proposed MAUT model can be used as an objective mechanism to prioritize infrastructure projects across asset classes to provide the necessary justification for infrastructure policy decision-making.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | infrastructure asset management; multi-attribute utility theory; multi-objective decision analysis; project prioritization; transportation infrastructure |
| Index terms: | decision-making, construction project, performance metric, multi-attribute utility theory, transportation agency, decision analysis, project prioritization, funding, transportation project, infrastructure project, infrastructure asset management, case study, transportation infrastructure |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, data collection methods, decision analysis, transportation engineering, asset management, infrastructure and transport systems, decision-making and optimization, production management, performance measurement |
| Topics: | Project Management, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Risk Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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