van der Meer, J; Hartmann, A; van der Horst, A and Dewulf, G (2022) Raising risk awareness in multi-criteria design decisions for integrated design and construction tenders. Construction Management and Economics, 40(4), pp. 296-312. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Awareness of design risks is essential for preparing integrated design and construction tenders as decisions in this phase can have serious consequences once the project is awarded. The practice of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) promises to support contractors in dealing with risks in the decision-making process. However, due to limited time and resources in a tender, risks involved in design alternatives are often overlooked and the selection of alternatives is mainly based on the decision-makers' knowledge and experience. This raises the question how decision makers can become aware of the risks in the tender phase of projects. Following a design science research approach three interventions to raise risk awareness are identified and validated in the context of an infrastructure tender in the Netherlands. These interventions are (1) a general list of defined criteria to identify those criteria that correspond with the characteristics of the tender; (2) mapping identified project risks on criteria and assign a bandwidth score; (3) evaluation of the quality of the decision process by scoring elements of decision quality. Based on these interventions three design rules are proposed to increase the transparency of decision problems and the understanding of choices and, by doing so, create awareness for risks involved in design alternatives.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision making; infrastructure tender; multi-criteria decision analysis; risk awareness |
| Index terms: | design risk, integrated design and construction, decision process, decision-making, mapping, Netherlands, transparency, multi-criteria decision analysis, decision-making process, design science research, design decision |
| Subjects: | spatial and geospatial analysis, professional development, construction integration, Geography, decision analysis, design practice, financial risk |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Design Practice, Research Practice, Risk Management, Cost Management, Geographical Context, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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