Lam, T I and Leung, M Y (2001) An analytical hierarchy process based procurement selection method. Construction Management and Economics, 19(4), pp. 427-437. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Procurement selection continues to be topical, and several advanced studies have been reported. One of the key concerns of procurement selection is how to enhance objectivity. A selection method developed using multi-attribute utility technology[1] (MAUT) and the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is proposed. With the input of industrial experts, critical procurement selection criteria and procurement strategies commonly used in Hong Kong were identified. Against these criteria, utility factors corresponding to various procurement strategies were then assigned by the experts to create a utility factor table. To cater for individual project characteristics, the relative importance weightings of the selection criteria were assessed using the analytical hierarchy process. Final selection was then based on the highest utility value derived from the procurement strategies, taking into account the relative importance of the selection criteria. The use of the model is illustrated with actual data.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytical hierarchy process; multi-attribute utility technology; procurement selection |
| Index terms: | selection method, procurement strategy, selection criteria, relative importance, analytical hierarchy process, Hong Kong |
| Subjects: | decision-making and optimization, tendering, contractual arrangements, risk assessment, Geography |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Risk Management, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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