Skibniewski, M J and Chao, L C (1992) Evaluation of advanced construction technology with AHP method. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(3), pp. 577-593. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
It is difficult to quantify the intangible benefits of advanced construction technologies and the risks involved in implementing such technologies with the use of traditional economic analysis techniques. An analytical approach to assessing the intangible aspects of technical innovation in construction is presented. The approach uses the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) technique and incorporates both favorable and unfavorable evaluation factors in one framework. The methods for constructing the comparison matrices, measuring the consistency of the pairwise comparisons, and aggregating the eigenvectors for the matrices to produce a final result are discussed. The sources of information for evaluation using the AHP method are identified and the significance of the method as a communication tool for group discussion is addressed. An example evaluation of two towercrane alternatives, one traditional and one semiautomated, is given to demonstrate the viability of the proposed approach. The effect of the managerial judgments on the acceptability of a new technology alternative is shown via a sensitivity analysis.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | analytical hierarchy process, new technology, eigenvector, judgment, advanced construction technology, economic analysis, sensitivity analysis |
| Subjects: | manufacturing engineering, measurement and scaling, environmental hazards, decision-making and optimization, dispute resolution, design analysis, innovation and technology management |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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