Basaran, Y.; Aladag, H. and Isik, Z. (2026) Machine learning-based dynamic model for on-site subcontractor performance management. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 33(7), pp. 5592-5624. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – There is a necessity for a dynamic tracing, controlling, and process of decision-making for on-site subcontractor (SC) performance management during the project execution phase. Therefore, this study presents a dynamic model that offers a new way to SC management with the integration of machine learning (ML) for faster and more effective evaluation of on-site performance data of SCs. Design/methodology/approach – A literature review on both on-site SC performance evaluation and ML use in construction management practices was conducted. Then, in line with the gap in the literature, the model developing phase begins with the "On-Site SC performance measurement (PM)" and continues with the "subcontractor average weighted performance, " where criterion weights were considered through the Pythagorean fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and used in data entry for ML. The development of the model continues with "machine learning algorithm selection." The last stage consists of "the action plan" that constitutes the decision-making processes and is supported by expert support. Findings – For the ML-based model, six ML algorithms were tested individually, and decision tree algorithms were chosen among them and validated. The validation of the ML-based developed model was carried out on a superstructure project, and it was determined that the proposed model provided accurate results. The action plans suggested by the proposed model would help practitioners to determine corrective and/or precautionary actions in a faster and more accurate way regarding the real performance of SCs. Originality/value – This study lays stress on developing an ML-based dynamic performance management model based on the actual and continual PM of the SCs for the construction execution stage. Unlike existing literature that primarily focuses on selecting SCs based on their past performance during the bidding phase, this model enables real-time assessment of SC performance. In addition, with the help of ML integration, the dynamic structure of the model, which allows immediate identification of SCs who fall below the expected performance standards during the implementation phase and the derivation of relevant action plans, distinguishes the proposed model from other performance evaluation models.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction innovation; decision trees; machine learning; on-site performance; performance management; subcontractor performance management |
| Index terms: | decision tree, performance measurement, machine learning, methodology, validation, literature review, decision-making, performance management, management practice, integration, decision-making process, bidding, implementation, construction innovation, performance evaluation, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, practitioner, subcontractor |
| Subjects: | practitioner, professional development, building construction, decision-making and optimization, bidding, decision analysis, artificial intelligence, data analysis and analytics, performance measurement, management, contractual arrangements, organizational analysis, research methods |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Organizational Design, Procurement, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Information Management, Roles and Professions |
| 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