Wanous, M; Boussabaine, H and Lewis, J (2004) A neurofuzzy decision-support model for mark-up estimation. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Uncertainty about the future lies at the heart of many decision problems including mark-up estimation. Numerous mark-up models have been proposed for possible use by contractors over a period of some fifty years. However, such models have not been popular amongst practitioners. Hence an innovative and practical neurofuzzy model is presented for possible use by Syrian contactors in making their bidding decisions. The rule base of this model was extracted from ninety-six real life bidding situations using the neurofuzzy technique. The model was tested on another fifteen projects, not used in the modelling process, and proved to be 91.7% accurate in simulating the mark-ups set in real life.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; mark-up; neuro fuzzy; fuzzy logic; Syria |
| Index terms: | bidding, practitioner, Syria, heart, estimation, mark-up, fuzzy logic, modelling |
| Subjects: | medical science and clinical practice, practitioner, bidding, financial and cost management, price determination, data science, political and administrative geography, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Cost Management, Digital Applications, Procurement, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions |
| 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