Zeng, J; An, M and Chan, A H C (2005) A fuzzy reasoning decision making approach based multi-expert judgement for construction project risk analysis. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2005, London, UK.
Abstract
With the advance of technology, construction projects have become increasingly complex and dynamic. Risk assessment, therefore, is normally a process of decision making conducted by multiple experts in a vague and fuzzy environment. It should be noted that background and contribution of the experts to the subject under consideration would differ from one another. However, preferences of experts do not have to be in conflict. The decision to be made by a group is highly dependent on the way of interaction and the type of aggregation to individuals. Therefore, risk analysts are required to capture the underlying subjective preferences to reach a decision value upon a reliable analysis. In order to facilitate the handling of uncertainty and subjectivity associated with projects and expert judgements, a multi-expert decision making methodology based on fuzzy set theory is proposed. The methodology utilizes a fuzzy aggregation system in which an appropriate control action can be determined by the acquisition and examination of individual expert judgements. This paper describes the principal issues of multi-expert judgement based on fuzzy reasoning decision making approaches in construction project risk analysis. A risk analysis model based on fuzzy set theory is presented to facilitate the decision making involving multiple experts under a vague and subjective circumstance. An illustrative example is also presented to demonstrate the proposed risk analysis model.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | fuzzy set theory; multi-expert judgement; decision making; risk assessment |
| Index terms: | preference, interaction, risk analysis, decision-making, methodology, risk assessment, construction project, expert judgement, subjectivity, acquisition, fuzzy set theory, reasoning |
| Subjects: | human factors and perception, risk assessment, business, decision-making and optimization, environmental hazards, behavioral psychology, decision analysis, cognitive psychology, production management, financial risk, research methods, decision-making and reasoning |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Risk Management, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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