Nguyen Ngoc, H; Mohammed Abdelkader, E; Al-Sakkaf, A; Alfalah, G and Zayed, T (2024) A hybrid AHP-MAUT model for assessing competitiveness of construction companies: A case study of construction companies in Vietnam and Canada. Construction Innovation, 24(5), pp. 1320-1353. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose: The construction industry is facing an enormous number of challenges due to continuous advancements in construction technologies and techniques. Hence, construction management theories have to confront critical newly issues concerning market globalization and construction innovations. The key factor to address these challenges is to ameliorate the competitive abilities of the competing construction firms. In this context, measuring competitiveness of construction firms is an efficacious approach to amplify their competitive growth and profitability. To this end, the purpose of this research paper is to design a three-tier multi-criteria decision making model for competitiveness assessment and benchmarking of construction companies, meanwhile tackling a wide range of essential factors and attributes that covers broad aspects of the present competitive market. Design/methodology/approach: In the first tier, four new pillars (4P) of competitiveness assessment are introduced for construction firms, namely, organization performance, project performance, environment and client and innovation and development. These pillars are able to aid in construction firms’ management on both long and short term basis. Hence, 21 key competitive factors and eighty key competitive criteria are identified, incorporated and analyzed in this research study. The second tier encapsulates carrying out a questionnaire survey in the Canadian and Vietnamese market to garner two main sets of information. The first set of information incorporates responses of the pairwise comparisons between competitiveness factors and criteria. The second set involves gathering utility scores pertinent to each competitiveness criteria. The developed model then leverages the use of analytical hierarchy process to scrutinize the relative importance priorities of competitiveness factors and criteria. The third tier of the developed model encompasses the use of multi-attribute utility theory to compute competitiveness scores for construction companies through blending criteria’ relative importance weights alongside their respective utility functions. In addition, the third tier comprises conducting a sensitivity analysis to derive the most important criteria influencing the overall competitiveness of construction companies. The developed model is tested and validated using three case studies; one construction company from Canada and two construction companies from Vietnam. Findings: Results demonstrated that the developed model has a potential to render a synthesized and methodical performance evaluation for the competitive ability of a given construction company. Furthermore, it was found that Vietnamese companies are more considerate towards pillars pertaining to environment and client while Canadian companies are more attentive towards innovation and development. The outcome of sensitivity analysis revealed that effectiveness of cost management highly affects the competitive ability of Vietnamese companies while effectiveness of cost management exhibits the most significant influence on the competitive of Canadian companies. Practical implications: The developed model can benefit construction companies to understand their competitiveness in their market and diagnose their strengths and weaknesses. It is also can be useful in efficient utilization of their limited resources and development of sustainable and long-term strategic plans strategic plans, which consequently leads to maintaining better position in their dynamic business markets. Originality/value: Literature review manifests that reported competitiveness assessment models and practices are not able to address present challenges, technologies and developments in construction market.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytical hierarchy process; competitiveness assessment; construction industry; multi-attribute utility theory; organization performance; questionnaire survey; sensitivity analysis |
| Index terms: | project performance, competitiveness, profitability, effectiveness, construction technology, construction market, analytical hierarchy process, markets, construction industry, multi-attribute utility theory, case study, Canada, cost management, management theory, questionnaire, globalization, methodology, decision-making, construction innovation, performance evaluation, benchmarking, sensitivity analysis, research paper, relative importance, Vietnam, construction firm, survey, construction company, literature review |
| Subjects: | environmental hazards, economic factors, decision-making and optimization, industry analysis, building construction, decision analysis, market analysis, project management theory and practice, Geography, research methods, accounting and finance, performance management, management, performance measurement, economic analysis, data analysis and analytics, digital engineering, organization, data collection methods, research dissemination and communication, risk assessment |
| Topics: | International Construction, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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