Kishk, M; Al-Hajj, A and Pollock, R (2001) Inclusion of non-financial factors in life-cycle decision-making: A fuzzy approach. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 17th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2001, Salford, UK.
Abstract
An effective algorithm has been developed to include non-monetary benefits of competing design alternatives in life cycle costing studies. The algorithm handles a number of competing alternatives with multiple aspects of needs desired by the client, analyses them systematically, and ranks them automatically. The unique feature of the algorithm, amongst others, is that it proceeds through logical steps that can be followed and assessed by decision-makers. Details of the computer implementation of the algorithm are presented. The solution of a selected example problem is also included to illustrate the theory of the algorithm. The development of this algorithm is in line with a series of innovative algorithms developed by the authors in recent years. These algorithms follow a novel theoretical framework that utilizes the inherent capabilities of fuzzy set theory, probability theory, statistics, and decision analysis. These algorithms will be integrated in a user-friendly life-cycle decision support tool.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | fuzzy set theory; life cycle costing; intangibles; public sector |
| Index terms: | decision support, decision analysis, life cycle, fuzzy set theory, public sector, decision-making, financial factor, implementation, costing, statistics |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, administrative law, decision-making and optimization, accounting and finance, economic analysis, contractual arrangements, mathematical modelling, value management |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Procurement, Risk Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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