Elmisalami, T E (2001) Developing a multi-attribute utility model (MAUM) for selecting information technologies in the construction industry. PhD thesis, Iowa State University, USA.
Abstract
The construction industry lags behind other industries in adopting new information technologies (ITs). The current construction procedures used to transfer data need to be updated. The most common data capture technologies are bar code and radio frequency identification (RFID) tagging. Although bar code and RFID systems are quite different, they might accomplish the same tasks. In fact, so many new data capture technologies now exist that industry managers are often perplexed when they plan a new system. This research develops a decision tool that enables decision makers in the construction industry to select the most appropriate data capturing technology for their construction applications. This decision tool is a systematic evaluation model based upon the Multi-Attribute Utility theory (MAUT). This Multi-Attribute Utility Model (MAUM) can be adapted to evaluate other construction-related applications such as construction equipment, building methods, and new projects. MAUM is also a good group decision-making tool that considers all decision makers' concerns and objectives. MAUM's feasibility as a decision tool was assessed by both laboratory technicians and information technology professionals (ITPs) at six material testing labs, both private and government. Aggregate utilities were calculated for 10 different bar code and RFID portable data terminals (PDTs). These aggregate utilities simultaneously combine technical-merit, economic-merit, and low-risk merit utilities for the PDTs. Two RFID and one bar code systems achieved the greatest aggregate utilities, indicating that some bar code systems can be better than other RFID systems. There were not many significant differences between government and private labs, although private labs are profit oriented and thus more cost conscious, making them more selective in systems technical performance. The study showed that ITPs are more concerned about technical specifications of the PDTs, while technicians are more concerned about its environmental reliability. Sensitivity analysis revealed that changes in model interaction relationships, system cost, and the aggregation rules had no major effect on the ranking of top systems.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Jaselskis, E |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | radio frequency identification; reliability; multi-attribute utility theory; utility theory; construction equipment; equipment; utilities; government; information technology; specification; professional |
| Index terms: | decision-making, information technology, laboratory, manager, specification, sensitivity analysis, utility theory, profit, interaction, testing, construction industry, multi-attribute utility theory, radio frequency identification, construction equipment, aggregate, utilities |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, decision-making and optimization, economic theory, environmental hazards, behavioral psychology, decision analysis, research management, contractual condition, construction equipment, professional practice, economic analysis, digital technology, materials science, computing systems, practitioner, construction type |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Contract Administration, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Plant and Equipment, Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| 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