Li, J and Zou, P X W (2011) Fuzzy AHP-based risk assessment methodology for PPP projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), pp. 1205-1209. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) have been used globally as a method to procure infrastructure projects, such as expressways, bridges, water plants, and power plants. The risks involved in such PPP projects are unique because of the large amount of investment and long contractual concession period. This paper proposed a fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) as risk assessment technique to simulate the vagueness of human judgement and to improve the assessment accuracy. Furthermore, a comparison was made between the proposed fuzzy AHP and straight-AHP in this paper. The fuzzy AHP process was illustrated by using an actual PPP expressway project from China. The results showed that planning deficiency, low project residual value (after 30years of operation), lack of qualified bidders, design deficiency, and long project approval time were assessed as the top five risks for the project, and the feedback from the experts showed that these results reflected the actual project risk situation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytical hierarchy process; fuzzy; PPP project; risk assessment |
| Index terms: | bidder, risk assessment, public private partnership, infrastructure project, analytical hierarchy process, concession period, power plant, methodology, China, approval, accuracy |
| Subjects: | bidding, contractual arrangements, contractual role, decision-making and optimization, infrastructure and transport systems, contract structure, research methods, Geography, professional development, financial risk |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Cost Management, Procurement |
| 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