Chan, A P C (1995) Towards an expert system on project procurement. Journal of Construction Procurement, 1(2), pp. 111-123. ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
A great deal of attention has been directed towards the studies of individual procurement method, however few studies have focused upon a direct investigation of the factors affecting the choice of a particular procurement method. This paper reports a research study carried out in Australia on procurement selection. The study, based on a multi-attribute approach, aimed to develop an expert system to aid the selection of the most appropriate procurement system. A procurement categorisation was developed to reflect the current procurement practice in Australia. The model is based on a set of utility factors derived from three local experts. A concordance analysis was used to check any abnormal data sources. Twenty six case studies were carried out in which clients were asked to indicate the relative importance of each criterion in the system. The most appropriate procurement method recommended by the model was computed and compared with the actual choices made by the respective clients. 54% of the cases were found to have the first two recommendations matching the actual selection. This demonstrates some encouraging results and suggests a favourable possibility of developing an expert system to select procurement systems.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | expert system, multi-attribute analysis, procurement, utility factor |
| Index terms: | multi-attribute analysis, investigation, expert system, Australia, procurement system, procurement method, project procurement, case study, relative importance |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, data management, Geography, risk assessment, contractual arrangements, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Risk Management, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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