Rutter, D and Potter, B (2003) The role of multi-criterion decision methods (MCDM) in securing best value from buildings procured through PPP/PFI. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
Multiple Criteria Decision Methods (MCDM) in various guises, have been in use in industry for some time. The emphasis, however, has generally been on the process of establishing value criteria and reaching the preferred choice, be it a design proposal or contractor selection. Very little attention, however, has been given to the performance of buildings over their intended lives. One possible reason for this lack of attention is the absence of accountability for non-performance. This is to be expected, since no clear statement of life-time performance criteria has been established across all built facilities. As a consequence it is extremely difficult to determine exactly where the responsibility lies for non-performance. The matter of performance has taken on greater urgency with the introduction of PPP/PFI projects. Judging by the experience of users of the facilities, many of the disputes over non-performance seem to revolve around the lack of clarity in the framing of performance criteria. It is only by giving sufficient attention to the framing of performance criteria based on MCDM methodology, that a robust and workable set of performance criteria may be developed.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accountability; evaluation; multiple criteria decision methods; PFI; value for money |
| Index terms: | value-for-money, multiple criteria decision method, best value, methodology, time performance, accountability, framing, dispute, contractor selection, performance criteria, proposal |
| Subjects: | evaluation, performance measurement, tendering, research methods, liability law, project controls, decision analysis, dispute resolution, conceptual models, project planning, bidding |
| Topics: | Value Management, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Time Control, Project Management, Research Practice, Procurement, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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