Goldenberg, M and Shapira, A (2007) Systematic evaluation of construction equipment alternatives: Case study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(1), pp. 72-85. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Selecting the right equipment for the project is inherently a multifaceted cost and benefit evaluation process that is further compounded by the complexity of today's building projects and the lack of systematic tools for the consideration of soft factors. This paper presents a detailed application example of a model based on an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach. This model was developed to address the difficulties experienced during the multifaceted process. The example illustrates how an AHP-based model helps address the multitude of qualitative, intangible factors, both among the factors themselves and then vis-̀-vis costs, by means of a systematic and traceable process. The method enables project managers and their equipment selection teams to exercise their knowledge, intuition, and professional judgment, and at the same time to address the context and specifics of the particular projects under examination. The example should be helpful for construction practitioners dealing with similar equipment selection issues. Researchers may find interest in the implementation of a multiattribute- decision-making method for a typical construction management problem.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case reports; construction equipment; decision making; project management |
| Index terms: | intuition, complexity, decision-making, construction practitioner, project management, analytical hierarchy process, implementation, exercise, judgment, construction equipment, project manager, case study, equipment selection |
| Subjects: | cognitive psychology, decision analysis, decision-making and optimization, systems engineering, procurement capability, construction equipment, professional development, project management theory and practice, contractual arrangements, data collection methods, profession, health behaviours and lifestyles, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Plant and Equipment, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Supply Chain Management, Legal Issues |
| 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