Li, H (1997) Determinants of knowledge-based expert system success in construction engineering. Building Research & Information, 25(2), pp. 101-106. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This study is the second part of a research project aiming at investigating important issues and factors relating to the success of a knowledge-base expert system (KBES) development. Each factor has several surrogate items as dependent variables used to measure certain aspects of the factor. Using angular fuzzy sets, values of the surrogate items can be quantitatively determined and items with values less than one are regarded as weak items. Deployment of corrective action is therefore required to enhance weak items. Despite the limitations of the study, it is believed that it represents one of the first attempts to identify and address the determinants of KBES success in the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; construction; determinants of implementation success; factors; kbes; knowledge based expert system; surrogate items |
| Index terms: | Australia, fuzzy set, dependent variable, construction industry, implementation, determinant, expert system, construction engineering |
| Subjects: | data management, statistical analysis, industry analysis, decision-making and optimization, engineering methods, Geography, contractual arrangements, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Procurement, Risk Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles |
| 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