Okudan, O; Demirdöğen, G and Işık, Z (2025) A decision-support framework for suspension of public infrastructure projects: A combined use of neutrosophic AHP and TOPSIS. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(5), pp. 3187-3216. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to develop a decision-support framework that can be used by decision-makers to suspend public infrastructure projects. Additionally, the study also investigates how to select the most convenient infrastructure project for suspension. Design/methodology/approach: The proposed framework includes an extensive set of factors and a novel comparison mechanism that can reveal the most convenient infrastructure project to be suspended. A comprehensible literature review and focus group discussion (FGD) sessions were conducted to identify factors that should be considered for suspension. Then, the neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process (N-AHP) method was used to determine the relative importance of the factors. Finally, the proposed comparison mechanism was demonstrated through a hypothetical case study and Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) analysis. Findings: Results showed that suspension decisions cannot be made merely based on "financial" factors. Instead, the other aspects, namely "Technical and managerial" and "Social and Environmental", should also be taken into consideration. Second, factors related to the initial investment, cost of refinancing, cash flow, permits and approvals, insufficiency of bidders, degradation of the components, reputation, impact on stakeholders and criticality of the infrastructure were particularly elaborated as the most significant, needing the utmost attention of the decision-makers. Lastly, the results demonstrated that the proposed comparison mechanism has considerable potential to identify the most convenient infrastructure project for suspension. Originality/value: Public infrastructure projects are often under pressure due to the inflationary state and economic stagnation of countries after major crises. The suspension decision for infrastructure projects necessitates comprehensible assessments to consider all consequences. Studies have widely investigated the contractual and legal aspects of project suspension in light of existing literature. However, little effort has been devoted to identifying the factors that decision-makers should consider before suspending a particular infrastructure project. Furthermore, existing literature does not investigate how to select the most convenient infrastructure project for suspension either. Thus, by developing a specific suspension framework for infrastructure projects by considering various factors, this study is the earliest attempt to examine the contract suspension mechanism of public infrastructure projects. In this respect, the study significantly contributes to the theory of contract management domain and has important managerial implications.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | economic and political turmoils; MCDM; neutrosophic AHP; public infrastructure projects; suspension of construction contracts; TOPSIS |
| Index terms: | construction contract, bidder, infrastructure project, public infrastructure, case study, topsis, degradation, methodology, preference, focus group, contract management, relative importance, cash flow, approval, literature review |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, data collection methods, data analysis and analytics, material degradation and durability, financial management, infrastructure and transport systems, contractual role, contract type, bidding, decision-making and reasoning, research methods, contract management, decision-making and optimization |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Cost Management, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Risk Management, Procurement, Engineering Principles |
| 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