Alshibani, A; El Ghazzawi, Y A; Mohammed, A; Ghaithan, A M and Hassanain, M A (2024) A multi-criteria decision-making model for heavy construction equipment replacement in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 29(3), pp. 485-511. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Purpose: This paper aims to propose a novel model that addresses the limitations of current practices, through considering quantitative and qualitative criteria in the decision-making process for equipment replacement. Design/methodology/approach: Literature review and consultation with professionals in the heavy construction industry was conducted to identify the criteria influencing the replacement of construction machines. A questionnaire survey using analytic hierarchy process and multi-attribute utility theory was used to rank these criteria and establish their utility scores. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess how adjustments in the weights of main criteria would impact equipment replacement decisions. Findings: The identified criteria were classified into three categories: economic, technical and socioenvironmental, encompassing a total of 15 criteria. The findings indicated that salvage value/meeting payback period/maximizing profitability held the highest importance in the replacement process, followed by considerations like high repair and maintenance cost; working condition and economic conditions. Safety and social benefits scored the least among all criteria and categories. Research limitations/implications: This study focuses on earth-moving equipment and involves experts from the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. The model introduces a novel methodology to aid decision-makers, particularly contractors and project managers, in determining when to replace heavy construction equipment, which results in resource efficiency and time saving. Originality/value: The model integrates expertise and knowledge from experts to establish criteria for replacing construction equipment. This research aims to improve the functionality of the decision-making process regarding the acquisition or replacement of equipment throughout its lifespan. © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytical hierarchy process; equipment replacement; multi-attribute utility theory; pollution; safety |
| Index terms: | survey, functionality, literature review, social benefit, multi-criteria decision-making, sensitivity analysis, lifespan, replacement, repair, questionnaire, payback, methodology, acquisition, decision-making process, salvage, multi-attribute utility theory, project manager, construction equipment, pollution, Saudi Arabia, economic condition, maintenance cost, analytical hierarchy process, heavy construction, time saving, profitability, resource efficiency |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, decision-making and optimization, environmental health, environmental hazards, time analysis, management, financial management, theoretical framing, maintenance engineering, research methods, Geography, construction equipment, design features, data analysis and analytics, economic analysis, material degradation and durability, profession, data collection methods, business, materials science, waste management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Construction Materials, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Plant and Equipment, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Time Control |
| 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