Du, J and El-Gafy, M (2011) Feasibility analytical mapping (FAM) for the bidding decision: A graphic bidding decision making model based on multidimensional scaling and discriminant analysis. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 7(3), pp. 198-209. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
This article examines the shortage of current bidding models and proposes a model called "Feasibility Analytical Mapping (FAM)" for the bidding decision. FAM provides decision makers with a graph-based analysis tool of potential bids. By using information visualization and supervised learning techniques, high dimensional historical bidding data can be transformed into a graphic representation called "Feasible Business Domain Map (FBDM)." Risk for potential bids can be judged using FBDM. FAM presents the analysis results in a visualized form that is objective, understandable and convincible. A hypothetical case is illustrated at the end of this paper to demonstrate the superiority of the proposed model.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding decision; discriminant analysis; information visualization; multidimensional scaling; supervised learning |
| Index terms: | discriminant analysis, scaling, bidding, information visualization, mapping, decision-making |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, statistical analysis, visualization, bidding, organization, spatial and geospatial analysis |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Procurement, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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