Phillips, S; Martin, J; Dainty, A and Price, A (2007) Uncertainty in best value decision making. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 12(2), pp. 63-72. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
The sheer volume of decisions taken within the public sector procurement process prevents perfect and complete information being obtained and applied to every best value tender analysis that is carried out. As such, uncertainty must be accepted as a feature of the best value decision-making process. This paper reports research which is developing a methodology for utilising the uncertainty component in best value tender analysis in order to create a more transparent decision making process. The main output of the research is the production of a robust support tool which aids the multi objective decision making process within the public sector of the UK construction industry by provoking rational discussion with respect to; the industry's key performance indicators (KPIs), the client's attitude to risk and provides a transparent audit trail of the decisions taken. The underlying rationale for the support tool is based on a combination of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) and Whole Life Costing (WLC). The paper demonstrates the practical utility of the methodology of the tool through a tender decision process.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analystic hierarchy process; best value; multi-attribute utility theory; risk; uncertainty; utility function |
| Index terms: | decision-making, methodology, whole-life costing, best value tender, public sector procurement, best value, construction industry, multi-attribute utility theory, key performance indicator, public sector, audit, decision process, decision-making process |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, decision-making and optimization, administrative law, occupational health, decision analysis, tendering, research methods, performance measurement, project delivery, contractual arrangements, bidding |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Procurement, Risk Management, Quality Management, Legal Issues |
| 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