Group decision-making in civil engineering based on AHP and PROMETHEE methods

• Autorzy: Marović Ivan , Tijanić Ksenija , Šopić Martina , Car-Pušić Diana

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.22630/PNIKS.2020.29.4.41

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and PROMETHEE have gained increasing attention in the field of construction management as techniques for the analysis of complex situations and as decision support for decision makers. However, these two methods in themselves or their potential applications to problems of construction management are not sufficiently defined in the existing literature. The environment of group decision-making bring even more challenges. This paper consolidates and critically discusses the current knowledge on the application of AHP and PROMETHEE methods in the light of the specifics of the construction industry. A systematic literature review was used to select the contributions indexed in the databases Scopus and Web of Science. The findings indicate that the studies deal with broad topics and different aspects in different phases of civil engineering projects. This paper provides a useful reference work for researchers and practitioners interested in the application of AHP and PROMEETHEE as tools for group decision-making in civil engineering.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

group decision-making; project management; outranking method; AHP; PROMETHEE

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Szkoły Głównej Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie
• Czasopismo: Przegląd Naukowy Inżynieria i Kształtowanie Środowiska
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 29, No. 4
• Strony: 474--484
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 48 poz., rys., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Marović Ivan

• University of Rijeka, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Radmile Matejčić 3, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia

autor

Tijanić Ksenija

• University of Rijeka, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Radmile Matejčić 3, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia

autor

Šopić Martina

• University of Rijeka, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Radmile Matejčić 3, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia

autor

Car-Pušić Diana

• University of Rijeka, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Radmile Matejčić 3, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia

Bibliografia

• Abdullahi, S., Mahmud, A.R.B. & Pradhan, B. (2014). Spatial modelling of site suitability assessment for hospitals using geographical information system-based multicriteria approach at Qazvin city Iran. Geocarto International, 29(2), 164-184.
• Ahmad, I. & Verma, M.K. (2018). Application of analytic hierarchy process in water resources planning: a GIS based approach in the identification of suitable site for water storage. Water Resources Management, 32(15), 5093-5114.
• Alhumaid, M., Ghumman, A.R., Haider, H., Al-Salamah, I.S. & Ghazaw, Y.M. (2018). Sustainability evaluation framework of urban stormwater drainage options for arid environments using hydraulic modeling and multicriteria decision-making. Water, 10(5), 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10050581
• Arabameri, A., Rezaei, K., Cerdà, A., Conoscenti, C. & Kalantari, Z. (2019). A comparison of statistical methods and multi-criteria decision making to map flood hazard susceptibility in Northern Iran. Science of the Total Environment, 660, 443-458.
• Balali, V., Zahraie, B. & Roozbahani, A. (2014). Integration of ELECTRE III and PROMETHEE II decision-making methods with an interval approach: Application in selection of appropriate structural systems. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 28(2), 297-314.
• Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R.B., Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M. (2010). PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1), 198-215.
• Brans, J.P. & Smet, Y. de (2016). PROMETHEE methods: Multiple criteria decision analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
• Chen, V.Y., Lien, H.P., Liu, C.H., Liou, J.J., Tzeng, G.H. & Yang, L.S. (2011). Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting the best environmentwatershed plan. Applied Soft Computing, 11(1), 265-275.
• Cheng, E.W., Li, H. & Yu, L. (2005). The analytic network process (ANP) approach to location selection: a shopping mall illustration. Construction Innovation, 5(2), 83-98.
• Danesh, D., Ryan, M.J. & Abbasi, A. (2015). Using analytic hierarchy process as a decisionmaking tool in project portfolio management. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Economic and Management Engineering, 9(12), 4194-4204.
• Darko, A., Chan, A.P.C., Ameyaw, E.E., Owusu, E.K., Parn, E. & Edwards, D.J. (2019). Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. International Journal of Construction Management, 19(5), 436-452.
• Deluka-Tibljaš, A., Karleuša, B. & Dragičević, N. (2013). Review of multicriteria-analysis methods application in decision making about transport infrastructure. Građevinar, 65(7), 619-631.
• Güler, D. & Yomralýoğlu, T. (2017). Alternative suitable landfill site selection using analytic hierarchy process and geographic information systems: a case study in Istanbul. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76(20), 678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-7039-1
• Hopfe, C.J., Augenbroe, G.L. & Hensen, J.L. (2013). Multi-criteria decision making under uncertainty in building performance assessment. Building and Environment, 69, 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-7039-1
• Hsieh, T.Y., Lu, S.T. & Tzeng, G.H. (2004). Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 573-584.
• Inamdar, P.M., Sharma, A.K., Cook, S. & Perera, B.J.C. (2018). Evaluation of stormwater harvesting sites using multi criteria decision methodology. Journal of Hydrology, 562, 181-192.
• Ishizaka, A. & Labib, A. (2011). Selection of new production facilities with the group analytic hierarchy process ordering method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 7317-7325.
• Jajac, N., Bilić, I. & Mladineo, M. (2012). Application of multicriteria methods to planning of investment projects in the field of civil engineering. Croatian Operational Research Review, 3(1), 113-124.
• Jajac, N., Knezić, S. & Marović, I. (2009). Decision support system to urban infrastructure maintenance management. Organization, Technology & Management in Construction, 1(2), 72-79.
• Jajac, N., Marović, I. & Hanak, T. (2015). Decision spport for management of urban transport projects. Građevinar, 67(2), 131-141.
• Jajac, N., Marović, I., Rogulj, K. & Kilić, J. (2019). Decision support concept to selection of wastewater treatment plant location – the case study of town of Kutina, Croatia. Water, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040717
• Jajac, N., Rogulj, K. & Radnić, J. (2017). Selection of the method for rehabilitation of historic bridges - a decision support concept for the planning of rehabilitation projects. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 11(2), 261-277.
• Jeong, J.S., García Moruno, L. & Hernández Blanco, J. (2013). A site planning approach for rural buildings into a landscape using a spatial multi-criteria decision analysis methodology. Land Use Policy, 32, 108-118.
• Jeong, J.S., García Moruno, L., Hernández Blanco, J. & Jaraíz Cabanillas, F.J. (2016). Sustainable modeling of new second homes placement in rural area. Estudios Geográficos, 77(280), 191-216.
• Khademi, N. & Sheikholeslami, A. (2010). Multicriteria group decision-making technique for a low-class road maintenance program. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 16(3), 188-198.
• Kilić, J., Jajac, N. & Marović, I. (2018). GIS-based Decision Support Concept to planning of land acquisition for realization of Urban Public Projects. Croatian Operational Research Review, 9(1), 11-24.
• Kušar, M. & Šelih, J. (2017). Determination of refurbishment priorities for passes on road network level. Technical Gazette, 24(4), 1129-1135.
• Liu, K.S., Hsueh, S.L., Wu, W.C. & Chen, Y.L. (2012). A DFuzzy-DAHP decision-making model for evaluating energy-saving design strategies for residential buildings. Energies, 5(11), 4462-4480.
• Macharis, C., Springael, J., De Brucker, K. & Verbeke, A. (2004). PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis. Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 153(2), 307-317.
• Macharis, C., Turcksin, L. & Lebeau, K. (2012). Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: state of use. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 610-620.
• Macharis, C., Witte, A. de & Ampe, J. (2010). The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: theory and practice. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 43(2), 183-202.
• Macieira, M., Mendonça, P., Miranda Guedes, J. & Tereso, A. (2019). Evaluating the efficiency of membrane’s refurbishment solutions to perform vertical extensions in old buildings using a multicriteria decision-support model. Architectural Engineering and Design Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007. 2019.1656597
• Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Cavallaro, F. & Khalifah, Z. (2015). Sustainable and renewable energy: an overview of the application of multiple criteria decision making techniques and approaches. Sustainability, 7(10), 13947-13984.
• Marović, I. & Hanak, T. (2017). Selection of adequate site location during early stages of construction project management: a multi-criteria decision analysis approach. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 251, 012044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/251/1/012044
• Marović, I. (2020). Multi-criteria decision-making in civil engineering – A PROMETHEE way. Outranking & Decisions [in print].
• Marović, I., Car-Pušić, D. & Hrvatin, Z. (2014). Establishing a model to evaluate public administration projects. e-GFOS, 5(8), 56-66.
• Marović, I., Završki, I. & Jajac, N. (2015). Ranking zones model - a multicriterial approach to the spatial management of urban areas. Croatian Operational Research Review, 6(1), 91-103.
• Milenković, M., Glavić, D. & Mladenović, M.N. (2018). Decision-support framework for selecting the optimal road toll collection system. Journal of Advanced Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4949565
• Nassar, K., Thabet, W. & Beliveau, Y. (2003). A procedure for multi-criteria selection of building assemblies. Automation in Construction, 12(5), 543-560.
• Nivolianitou, Z., Synodinou, B. & Manca, D. (2015). Flood disaster management with the use of AHP. International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, 5(1-2), 152-164.
• Pamučar, D.S., Tarle, S.P. & Parezanović, T. (2018). New hybrid multi-criteria decision-making DEMATEL-MAIRCA model: sustainable selection of a location for the development of multimodal logistics centre. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 31(1), 1641-1665.
• Papapostolou, A., Karakosta, C., Kourti, K.A., Doukas, H. & Psarras, J. (2019). Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment. Sustainability, 11(15), 4010. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154010
• Sarrazin, R. & De Smet, Y. (2015). Applying multicriteria decisiopn analysis to design safe road projects. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 15(4), 613-634.
• Sarrazin, R. & De Smet, Y. (2017). Solving a multicriteria road design problem: a practical example multiple criteria decision making. In C. Zopounidis, M. Doumpos (eds.), Multiple criteria decision making applications in management and engineering (pp. 113-136). Springer International Publishing.
• Silva, V.B., Morais, D.C. & Almeida, A.T. (2010). A multicriteria group decision model to support watershed committees in Brazil. Water Resources Management, 24(14), 4075-4091.
• Soni, V., Singh, S.P. & Banwet, D.K. (2016). Precise decisions in Indian energy sector by imprecise evaluation. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 10(1), 118-142.
• Wang, H., Shen, Q., Tang, B.S. & Skitmore, M. (2013). An integrated approach to supporting land-use decisions in site redevelopment for urban renewal in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 38, 70-80.
• Ziara, M., Nigim, K., Enshassi, A. & Ayyub, B.M. (2002). Strategic implementation of infrastructure priority projects: case study in Palestine. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 8(1), 2-11.