Udeaja, Chika Emmanuel (2002) A decision support framework for construction material supply chain management using multi-agent systems. PhD thesis, London South Bank University, UK.
Abstract
This research is based on developing a collaborative environment and decision support tool, using multi-agent framework, to support material procurement process. The environment views the material supply chain as a negotiating, service provider, autonomous and most importantly as a cooperative multi-agent reasoning process, and employs concepts from the DAI (multi-agent system) area such as autonomy, sociability, reactivity, proactiveness and competitive negotiation to organize and coordinate the supply chain functions and activities. The multi-agent framework is applied to support the material supply chain processes at planning before the actual material procurement process starts. The research is motivated by the need for a methodology and information technology tools that support and automate the task-oriented view of the material supply chain, which involves sourcing and other activities characterized by negotiation and collaboration between the client-contractor on one hand and contractor-supplier/sub-contractors on the other hand. The application has the potential to address the need for interoperability for the many heterogeneous software tools that are prevalent in the material supply chain. In order to develop a methodology for this system, literature review was conducted on the role of supply chain management in construction and other industries. It provided the basis to identify the shortcomings in existing management techniques and formed the argument for a technological tool for managing the material procurement processes. Furthermore, literature review was conducted on agent system approach, an emerging technique that is more suitable for understanding and managing the complex and dynamic problems of material supply chain processes. The analysis of agent technology enabled the development of a model based on role modelling for process modelling an UML for product modelling and the identification of implementation toolkit. The development of the model led to the design of a hybrid architecture based on multi-agent based supply chain environment and a relational database. The database was linked by Java DataBase Connectivity (JDBC) to the environment. The database store information on the materials, suppliers and relevant entities that make up the project.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | relational database, decision support, process modelling, connectivity, reasoning, supply chain process, literature review, negotiating, multi-agent system, material procurement, sub-contractor, methodology, collaboration, information technology, agent, toolkit, database, construction material, negotiation, interoperability, implementation, modelling |
| Subjects: | research methods, cognitive psychology, networking, practitioner, design analysis, analytical methods, contractual arrangements, software systems, management, decision analysis, data management, conflict resolution, systems and processes, computing systems, supply chain performance, building materials, data analysis and analytics, artificial intelligence |
| Topics: | Supply Chain Management, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Procurement, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Site Management, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder 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