Zhu, L; Wei, X and Liang, R (2024) Navigating uncertainty: Optimizing contractor selection for megaprojects in group decision-making with multiple criteria. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 150(11): 04024157, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The process of selecting contractors for megaprojects involves inherent uncertainty in judgment and preferences, especially under multiple criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) scenarios. This uncertainty often stems from the ambiguity and hesitation when decision makers (DM) evaluate and prioritize different criteria, causing challenges for the evaluation of contractors' technical capabilities. This study aims to enhance a generalized comparison table (GCT) by applying hesitant fuzzy soft sets to capture this uncertainty. Through the operation of a criteria adjustment algorithm for group consensus, experts-trust network, and the rule of maximum deviation, the GCT is improved by the ability to incorporate objective weights of subjective criteria. The improved GCT provides a transparent evaluation tool and has been tested on contractors' assessments for a mega tunneling project in China. Its practicality is demonstrated by matching the method-assisted decision with the final choice of the project manager. The key research findings highlight the importance of incorporating project-specific criteria, the criteria adjustment algorithm, and the objective weights of criteria to refine MCGDM. The main contributions of this study include (1) a novel framework of the improved GCT for MCGDM, (2) a new criteria system that includes common categories and a project-specific criteria category, (3) a criteria adjustment algorithm to attain group consensus decisions, and (4) objective weights of criteria and DM based on the experts-trust network and maximum deviation model.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contractor selection; generalized comparison table; megaprojects; multiple criteria group decision-making; uncertainty |
| Index terms: | megaproject, preference, China, decision-making, evaluation tool, deviation, judgment, project manager, contractor selection |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, evaluation and assessment methods, profession, strategic project management, financial and cost management, Geography, decision-making and reasoning, tendering, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Procurement, Cost Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice |
| 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