Kishk, M (2006) Handling the conservative nature of fuzzy whole-life cost simulations. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2006, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
In a previous paper (Kishk, 2004), a practical procedure has been developed to handle statistically significant data and expert assessments within the same whole-life costing (WLC) model calculation. However, results obtained from this algorithm are typically conservative. The objective of the research work that underpins this paper is to further investigate this conservative nature. First, various causes of this conservative nature are explored and discussed to identify how they can be eliminated. Then, an effective WLC model is developed and implemented into a practical algorithm to tackle some aspects of this conservative nature. Typical results showed its advantage over standard WLC models when dealing with normalized data. First, the model saves the time of preparing the data in the standard format. Secondly, and more importantly, the confidence measures in ranking can be better because of the elimination of the additional uncertainty in the predicted WLCs that may be caused by expanding normalised data to the standard format.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | financial management; fuzzy set theory; simulation; whole-life costing |
| Index terms: | whole-life costing, financial management, fuzzy set theory |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, occupational health, decision-making and optimization |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy |
| 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