Project investment decisions: Comparison of nonmonetary benefits

Asadabadi, M R (2024) Project investment decisions: Comparison of nonmonetary benefits. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 150(8): 05024008, ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

When deciding which project to fund, the comparison of project-required resources and monetary or financial benefits is relatively straightforward (as these can be presented in dollar values). In contrast, comparing the nonmonetary benefits of projects can be challenging. The literature often overlooks this problem and only provides high-level approaches (e.g., comparing a project's contributions to the organization's strategic goals). Such approaches are inefficient as they are highly subjective and may be impacted by decision-makers' bias. To this point in time, the literature has not effectively addressed this problem. This literature gap and the practical importance of the problem motivate the development of detailed step-by-step methodological processes to reduce subjectivity and enable a quantitative comparison of the nonmonetary benefits of projects. This paper develops such a novel straightforward methodology and illustrates its application through a case study where nonmonetary benefits of a railway construction project are compared against a hospital expansion project. In addition to this methodological contribution, this paper also contributes to the current literature on construction engineering and management by showing how to perform an effective comparison of the nonmonetary benefits in the project investment decision. The paper also sheds light on how the reasoning structures of different project decision makers may be impacted by their degree of optimism.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: decision support systems; project benefits; project selection; stratified decisions
Index terms: case study, project selection, construction engineering, investment decision, reasoning, decision support, subjectivity, methodology, bias, railway construction
Subjects: decision analysis, cognitive psychology, civil engineering, research methods, engineering methods, probability and distributions, economic analysis, data collection methods, human factors and perception, value management
Topics: Risk Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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