Kashiwagi, D T and Byfield, R (2002) Testing of minimization of subjectivity in best value procurement by using artificial intelligence systems in state of Utah procurement. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(6), pp. 496-502. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The Performance Information Procurement System (PIPS) was tested on the procurement of the $2.96 million Bridgerland Academic Training Center (ATC) for the state of Utah Division of Facilities Construction Management. The artificial intelligence (AI) information based PIPS was run two ways - selection with biased subjectivity (similar to current best value processes) and without biased subjectivity. Unlike other best value processes, PIPS minimizes the decision-making and subjective bias of the owner's representatives. The procurement test at Bridgerland ATC provides a comparison between the AI selection versus the user agency's subjective prioritization. The result of the system was one of the "best" construction projects procured at the state of Utah (on time, on budget, high quality), with no contractor generated change orders for additional cost, minimized construction management requirements, and high customer satisfaction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | artificial intelligence; cost control; project management; Utah |
| Index terms: | project management, cost control, agency, bias, subjectivity, owner, change order, testing, procurement system, best value procurement, minimization, best value, decision-making, construction project, customer satisfaction, artificial intelligence |
| Subjects: | algorithms, production management, tendering, contractual condition, probability and distributions, contractual arrangements, financial and cost management, service delivery, artificial intelligence, project management theory and practice, professional practice, human factors and perception, decision analysis, sociology, bidding |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Digital Applications, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Risk Management, Cost Management, Contract Administration, Project 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