Vahdat, K and Smith, N J (2010) A DSS framework for selecting projects in seismic areas. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
Selecting the best set of projects is a crucial decision in many organizations. Seismic risk could greatly influence the investment process in seismic areas. Current research proposes an integrated multi criteria based methodology that not only able to integrate range of financial and non-financial factors, it also participate the decision makers (DMs) in complex applications by decomposing the process into flexible and logical stages. Unconventional seismic risk assessment is considered jointly with conventional cost benefit analysis. There are many challenges for integrating financial and no-financial factors that make it difficult to be solved by normal tools. On the basis of indicator system, a new DSS framework is suggested that includes seismic risk index jointly with financial factors in a common scale.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision support system; management info system; modelling |
| Index terms: | modelling, methodology, financial factor, seismic risk, cost benefit analysis, decision support |
| Subjects: | financial risk, research methods, decision analysis, economic analysis, analytical methods, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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