Dynamic decision breakdown structure: Ontology, methodology, and framework for information management in support of decision-enabling tasks in the building industry

Kam, C K H (2005) Dynamic decision breakdown structure: Ontology, methodology, and framework for information management in support of decision-enabling tasks in the building industry. PhD thesis, Stanford University, USA.

Abstract

The development of AEC (architecture-engineering-construction) projects depends on the ability of decision makers to make informed and quick decisions. This requires the AEC decision facilitators to carry out decision-enabling tasks using methods and tools that are informative and rapid, so that they can integrate discipline-specific information from heterogeneous project stakeholders, evaluate choices, identify alternatives, refine decision criteria, and iterate these tasks throughout the decision-making processes. My research on industry case studies shows that current decision-support tools do not enable decision makers to make informed and quick decisions, because a structured and explicit approach to represent and organize heterogeneous information is lacking. My studies also demonstrate that current methods do not give facilitators the flexibility to manage this information while completing decision-enabling tasks. Consequently, facilitators cannot build on prior decision-enabling tasks to resume the decision process when the decision context changes. To address these limitations, I have developed the Dynamic Decision Breakdown Structure (DBS) Framework with three underlying contributions. First, my formalization of an AEC Decision Ontology allows facilitators to establish an explicit, informative, and hierarchical representation of heterogeneous decision information and its interrelationships. Second, I formalized a dynamic methodology---the Decision Method Model (DMM)---that interacts with the Ontology and enables facilitators to combine, evaluate, and recombine formally represented information, and to complete other decision-enabling tasks flexibly and quickly. Finally, I contribute an AEC decision-making framework that formalizes the sequences, characteristics, and requirements of information management throughout the changing decision context. This framework leverages the application of the hierarchical DBS and the dynamic DMM to support the continuity of decision-enabling tasks as the decision process evolves. I validated my contributions by evaluating the relative performance of the Decision Dashboard, a prototype computer application implemented with my ontology and methodology, with respect to a variety of methods and tools, used by renowned professionals involved in large-scale industry projects across the nation. Based on validation using six industry cases, eight decision-enabling tasks, and by twenty-one professionals and researchers, I claim that the Dynamic Decision Breakdown Structure enables more informative, flexible, resumable, and faster management of decision information than current methods.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Thesis advisor: Fischer, M
Uncontrolled Keywords: flexibility; information management; professional; project stakeholder; stakeholders; case studies
Index terms: decision criteria, building industry, case study, dashboard, decision process, facilitator, decision-making process, computer application, project stakeholder, validation, decision-making, methodology, ontology, prototype
Subjects: industry analysis, decision analysis, sociology, professional development, research methods, software systems, education and knowledge transfer, data science, modelling and simulation, practitioner, data collection methods
Topics: Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Risk Management, Engineering Principles
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTE

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