Chow, L K and Ng, S T (2005) Establishing a quantitaive performance evaluation framework through fuzzy membership functions. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2005, London, UK.
Abstract
Past practice of proposal-oriented Prequalification and Selection (PS) of Engineering Consultants (EC) is found problematic. Nowadays, public sectors and quasi-governmental organizations in many advanced countries emphasize on gauging ECs' performance at different project stages to congregate a set of Consultant Performance Evaluation (CPE) data for future PS. It is believed that the performance of ECs in previous projects could directly reflect its real strength and ability for succeeding assignments. To further enhance the reliability, it is desirable to merge all the CPE data from different clients into an integrated repository. A universal set of CPE criteria and corresponding Quantitative Indicators (QI) were compiled in previous research to provide a common evaluation platform. However, evaluation variations still exist as the QI require assessors' subjective value judgement based on their own expectations. The paper summarized the CPE criteria and QI identified in previous research, and illustrated the discrepancies arisen from applying subjective judgement in the evaluation. To tackle this deficiency, the paper further described how Quantitative Requirements (QR) of each QI against different performance levels could be established, by utilizing modified horizontal approach to develop fuzzy membership functions for each QI. Finally, an objective evaluation framework for CPE is proposed.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | consultant performance evaluation; quantitative indicators; quantitative requirements; modified horizontal approach; fuzzy membership functions |
| Index terms: | proposal, public sector, performance evaluation, platform, evaluation, variation, engineering consultant |
| Subjects: | project planning, performance measurement, contractual condition, administrative law, digital design, data analysis and analytics, professional |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Project Management, Contract Administration, Digital Applications |
| 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