Selection framework of disruption analysis methods for megaprojects: An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach

Okudan, O; Cevikbas, M and Işık, Z (2025) Selection framework of disruption analysis methods for megaprojects: An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(1), pp. 59-86. ISSN 0969-9988

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to propose a decision support framework that can be used by decision-makers to identify the most convenient disruption analysis (DA) methods for megaprojects and their stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach: The framework was initially developed by conducting a comprehensive literature review to obtain extensive knowledge about disruption management and megaprojects. Focus group discussion (FGD) sessions with the participation of the construction practitioners were then organized to validate and strengthen the findings of the literature review. Consequently, 17 selection factors were identified and categorized as requirement, ability and outcome. Lastly, the most convenient DA methods for megaprojects were identified by performing integrated fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) analysis. Additionally, consistency analysis was also conducted to verify the reliability of the results. Findings: The results revealed that the measured mile method is the most appropriate DA method for megaprojects. In case the measured mile method cannot be adopted due to various technical and contractual reasons, the decision-makers are proposed to consider program analysis, work or trade sampling, earned value analysis and control chart method, respectively. Second, the selection factors such as "Comprehensible analysis procedure," "Existing knowledge and experience about a particular DA method," "Ability to resolve greater number of disruption events," "Ability to resolve complex disruption events," "Ability to exclude factors that are not under the owner's responsibility" and "General acceptance by practitioners, courts, and arbitration, etc." were given the top priority by the experts, highlighting the critical aspects of the DA methods. Originality/value: Disruption claims in megaprojects are very critical for the contractors to compensate for the losses stemming from disruption events. Although the effective use of DA methods maximizes the accuracy and reliability of disruption claims, decision-makers can barely implement these methods adequately since past studies neglect to present extensive knowledge about the most convenient DA methods for megaprojects. Thus, developing a decision support framework for the selection of DA methods, this study is the earliest attempt that examines the mechanisms and inherent differences of DA methods. Additionally, owing to the robustness and versatility of this research approach, the research approach could be replicated also for future studies focusing on other project-based industries since disruption is also a challenging issue for many other industries.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: claim management in built environment; disruption analysis methods; disruption management; fuzzy MCDM; integrated fuzzy AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS; megaprojects
Index terms: topsis, owner, fuzzy topsis, claim management, sampling, built environment, analytical hierarchy process, project-based industry, future study, arbitration, focus group, decision support, multi-criteria decision-making, literature review, construction practitioner, accuracy, program, earned value analysis, methodology, practitioner, preference, megaproject
Subjects: data analysis and analytics, financial and cost management, dispute resolution, data collection methods, research design and methodology, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, decision analysis, contractual condition, professional development, software systems, strategic project management, practitioner, organization, decision-making and optimization, decision-making and reasoning, research methods
Topics: Project Management, Risk Management, Legal Issues, Cost Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Contract Administration, Organizational Design
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