Wong, E T T; Norman, G and Flanagan, R (2000) A fuzzy stochastic technique for project selection. Construction Management and Economics, 18(4), pp. 407-414. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The comparison of two or more risky projects is more of a challenge than the evaluation of one project in isolation. In the numerous decision models and methods suggested in the literature, often it is assumed that the criteria as well as the decision maker's preference or utility function can be crisply defined. Multi-attribute decision aids that permit the consideration of both multi-variables and risks generally have been associated with complex mathematics and heavy consumption of resources. This paper shows how project selection problems can be dealt with when some project attributes are subject to random variations. The method incorporates fuzzy analysis into multi-attribute utility theory. The aggregate utility function for an individual project is derived as a fuzzy number (or interval) which, in turn, yields probabilistic information for stochastic dominance tests. A unique feature of the approach is that it dispenses with the task of selecting probability distributions for aggregate utility functions. A comparison of the proposed method with the expected utility approach was made and the findings showed agreement between the results.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | fuzzy analysis; multi-attribute utility theory; project risk; stochastic dominance |
| Index terms: | multi-attribute utility theory, aggregate, probability distribution, project selection, variation, consumption, preference |
| Subjects: | statistical analysis, decision-making and optimization, contractual condition, decision-making and reasoning, value management, materials science, consumer economics |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Contract Administration |
| 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