Ng, S T; Luu, D T; Chen, S E and Lam, K C (2002) Fuzzy membership functions of procurement selection criteria. Construction Management and Economics, 20(3), pp. 285-296. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Many researchers have advocated the development and application of a systematic approach to the selection of procurement processes. Different procurement selection models aimed at improving the decision making process have been proposed. These models generally fail to address the fuzziness of selection criteria used for procurement selection. The aim of this paper is to establish the fuzzy membership function of procurement selection criteria through an empirical study conducted in Australia. Seven procurement selection criteria were considered fuzzy in nature. They are speed, complexity, flexibility, responsibility, quality level, risk allocation, and price competition. The fuzzy membership functions for each of these seven fuzzy procurement selection criteria were derived through a modified horizontal approach.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | fuzzy membership function; procurement; selection criteria |
| Index terms: | Australia, decision-making process, selection criteria, risk allocation, empirical study, procurement process, complexity, competition |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, systems engineering, decision analysis, market analysis, financial risk, Geography, research methods, tendering |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Procurement, Risk Management |
| 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