Utomo, C and Rahmawati, Y (2020) Agreement options for negotiation on material location decision of housing development. Construction Innovation, 20(2), pp. 209-222. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose: Different housing development stakeholders need to cooperate and collaborate to perform various project activities. Housing development requires infrastructure development, which includes preparation of sand material embankment as much as ± 200,000 m3. The objectives are to find a model for agreement options and coalition, to validate the algorithms of the best fit for material locations and to determine how much the proposed agreement option was achieved. This study provides a structured methodology that can lead to systematic support system and automated negotiation for decision-making on housing development process. Design/methodology/approach: Agreement option on group decision techniques was applied to determine the relative value of the alternative solutions for performing the function of project solutions. Analytical hierarchy process based on satisficing option was applied for decision process and game theory-based agent system for coalition formation. It is conducted in two stages that determine the decision preference and decision process consisting of four steps. The steps are constructing decision hierarchy, making judgment and synthesis, determining payoff optimum and analyzing the best fit option for all decision-makers. Findings: The proposed model enables each decision-maker to select individually its coalition. It will improve the value of strategic decision. All solutions are chosen by more than one decision-maker and coalitions, where all decision-makers agree with the result. It becomes possible location for the material of a housing development. A support model enables negotiation process in group decision. Decision algorithms are based on the cooperative game theory to develop the agreement options and coalition formation. Similar research studies were carried out in this area, but this research is – to the knowledge of the authors – the first to apply the satisficing of value-based on desirable and considerable. Research limitations/implications: The result is limited to the first-round negotiation of collaborative decision. A trade-off algorithm among decision-maker preference is needed for negotiation process. Future research is to continue working on multi-attribute decision-making, specifically on the process of eliciting user preference models such as neural network application and value function, and on establishing expert quantitative data from qualitative description of the feature of the alternative solution. It will need the development of trade-off algorithms to analyze value of technical solution in real time. Practical implications: The support model can be extended to an automated negotiation and in different strategic decision on all stages of housing development. Social implications: The satisficing algorithm of the coalition will satisfy all stakeholders. This will reduce any potential conflict. Originality/value: Combination of value-based decision, group decision and collaborative support. Application of coalition formation for agreement options is used to select the best fit material location. It is based on satisficing game theory rather than optimization.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | agreement option; artificial intelligence; construction plan and equipment; housing; housing development; material location; materials; team working; value management/engineering |
| Index terms: | housing development, game theory, infrastructure development, neural network, methodology, decision-making, housing, embankment, preference, agent, judgment, value-based decision, decision process, user preference, value management, real time, artificial intelligence, option, negotiation, sand, analytical hierarchy process |
| Subjects: | decision-making and reasoning, research methods, tendering, management, infrastructure engineering, decision analysis, project controls, conflict resolution, decision-making and optimization, infrastructure and transport systems, client relations, construction type, dispute resolution, practitioner, building materials, decision models, artificial intelligence |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Value Management, Legal Issues, Digital Applications, Time Control |
| 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