Implementation of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) decision ma king framework for building maintenance procurement selection: Case study of Malaysian public universities

• Autorzy: Chua S. J. L. , Ali A. S. , Alias A. B.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Zastosowanie platformy programistycznej wspomagającej podejmowanie decyzji, opartej na procesie hierarchii analitycznej (AHP) w postępowaniu przetargowym na utrzymanie budynków. Przypadek malezyjskich uczelni publicznych

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In this paper, the proposed Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) based decision making framework was implemented and validated for its capability, applicability and validity in assisting building maintenance personnel to select the most appropriate procurement method. The decision making framework was developed based on AHP technique and principles. Expert Choice Software was employed as the development tool where the shortlisted criteria and alternatives were integrated within the framework. The validation process was carried out through a structured interview with nine public universities selected. The evaluations revealed that majority of the interviewees perceived that the framework developed was good (65%) and excellent (21%) in terms of capability, applicability and validity. The proposed decision making framework introduced expected to be a useful tool for maintenance organization that can assist them in decision making on selecting the most appropriate procurement method.

PL

W niniejszej pracy przedstawiono platformę programistyczną wspomagającą podejmowanie decyzji opartą na procesie hierarchii analitycznej (AHP). Po wdrożeniu zaproponowanegoframeworku, weryfikowano jego wydajność, przydatność oraz wiarygodność jako narzędzia wspierającego pracowników utrzymania budynku przy wyborze najodpowiedniejszej metody przetargowej. Platformę opracowano w oparciu o technikę i zasady AHP. Jako narzędzia programistycznego użyto Expert Choice Software, za pomocą którego integrowano z frameworkiem wybrane kryteria i alternatywy. Weryfikację przeprowadzono na podstawie strukturalizowanego wywiadu z wybranymi dziewięcioma uczelniami publicznymi. Otrzymane oceny wykazały, że większość badanych postrzegało opracowaną platformę jako dobrą (65%) lub doskonałą (21%) pod względem wydajności, przydatności i wiarygodności. Przewiduje się, że proponowany framework wspomagający podejmowanie decyzji będzie stanowić użyteczne narzędzie doboru odpowiednich metod przetargowych dla instytucji zajmujących się obsługą techniczną.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

analytic hierarchy process (AHP); building maintenance management; procurement strategy alternative; procurement selection criteria; public university

PL

proces hierarchii analitycznej; zarządzanie utrzymaniem budynków; alternatywna strategia przetargowa; kryteria wyboru zamówienia; uczelnia publiczna

• Wydawca: Polskie Naukowo-Techniczne Towarzystwo Eksploatacyjne
• Czasopismo: Eksploatacja i Niezawodność
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: Vol. 17, no. 1
• Strony: 7--18
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 48 poz, tab.

Twórcy

autor

Chua S. J. L.

• Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

autor

Ali A. S.

• Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

autor

Alias A. B.

• Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Bibliografia

• 1. Adekunle, S.O., D. Michael, M.A.K. Malik, M. Peter, and R. Steve. Construction project procurement routes: an in-depth critique. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 2009; 2(3): 338-354.
• 2. Ambrose, M.D. and S.N. Tucker. Matching a Procurement System to Client and Project Needs: A Procurement System Evaluator. in W055/W065 Triennial Symposium on Customer Satisfaction. 1999.
• 3. Ancarani, A. and G. Capaldo. Supporting decision-making process in facilities management services procurement: A methodological approach. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 2005; 11(5–6): 232-241.
• 4. Atkin, B. and A. Brooks, Total Facilities Management. 2nd ed. 2005, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
• 5. Barret, P. and D. Baldry, Facilities Management: Towards Best Practice. 2nd ed. 2003, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
• 6. Bennett, J. and S. Jayes, Trusting the Team: The Best Practice Guide to Partnering in Construction. 1995, Reading: Centre for Strategic Studies in Construction, The University of Reading.
• 7. Cheung, S.O., T.I. Lam, M.Y. Leung, and Y.W. Wan. An analytical hierarchy process based procurement selection method. Construction Management and Economics 2001; 19(4): 427-437.
• 8. Chua, D., Y. Kog, and P. Loh. Critical Success Factors for Different Project Objectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 1999; 125(3): 142-150.
• 9. Chua, S.J.L., A.S. Ali, and A.B. Alias. An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Decision Making Framework for Procurement Strategy Selection in Building Maintenance Work. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 2013.
• 10. Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB), Construction Industry Master Plan Malaysia 2006-2015. 2007, Malaysia.
• 11. Espling, U. and U. Olsson. Part II. Partnering in a railway infrastructure maintenance contract: a case study. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 2004; 10(4): 248-253.
• 12. Hashim, M., M.C.Y. Li, N.C. Yin, N.S. Hooi, S.M. Heng, and T.L. Yong, Factors influencing the selection of procurement systems by clients, in International Conference on Construction Industry 2006 2006: Padang, Indonesia: 1-10.
• 13. Horner, R.M.W., M.A. El-Haram, and A.K. Munns. Building maintenance strategy: a new management approach. Journal of Quality In Maintenance Engineering 1997; 3(4): 273-280.
• 14. Hui, E.Y.Y. and A.H.C. Tsang. Sourcing strategies of facilities management. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 2004; 10(2): 85-92.
• 15. Ibbs, W. and Y.-Y. Chih. Alternative methods for choosing an appropriate project delivery system (PDS). Facilities 2011; 29(13): 527-541.
• 16. Kleeman, W.B. Out-tasking: More Widespread than Outsourcing in the USA. Facilities 1994; 12(2): 24-26.
• 17. Kumaraswamy, M.M. and S.M. Dissanayaka. Developing a decision support system for building project procurement. Building and Environment 2001; 36(3): 337-349.
• 18. Lateef, O.A. Building maintenance management in Malaysia. Journal of Building Appraisal 2009; 4(3): 207–214.
• 19. Lateef, O.A. Case for alternative approach to building maintenance management of public universities. Journal of Building Appraisal 2010b; 5(3): 201–212.
• 20. Lateef, O.A., M.F. Khamidi, and A. Idrus. Building maintenance management in a Malaysian university campuses: a case study. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building 2010a; 10(1/2): 76-89.
• 21. Lau, K.H. and J. Zhang. Drivers and obstacles of outsourcing practices in China. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 2006; 36(10): 776-792.
• 22. Lavy, S. and D.L. Bilbo. Facilities maintenance management practices in large public schools, Texas. Facilities 2009; 27(1): 5-20.
• 23. Leech, N.L., K.C. Barrett, and G.A. Morgan, IBM SPSS for Intermediate Statistics : Use and Interpretation. 4th ed. 2011, New York: Taylor & Franciz Group.
• 24. Love, P.E.D., Z. Irani, E. Cheng, and H. LI. A model for supporting inter-organizational relations in the supply chain. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 2002; 9(1): 2-15.
• 25. Love, P.E.D., M. Skitmore, and G. Earl. Selecting an Appropriate Procurement Method for the Construction Process: An Empirical Study. Construction Management and Economics 1998; 16(2): 221-233.
• 26. Luu, D.T., S.T. Ng, and S.E. Chen. A case-based procurement advisory system for construction. Advances in Engineering Software 2003a; 34(7): 429-438.
• 27. Masterman, J.W.E., An Introduction to Building Procurement Systems. 1992, London: Spon Press.
• 28. Morledge, R., A. Smith, and D.T. Kashiwagi, Building Procurement. 1st ed. 2006, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
• 29. Musa, Z.N., Determining the Best Options for Facilities Management(FM) Service Delivery in UK Shopping Complex, in School of the Built Environment 2011; Liverpool John Moores University: Liverpool: 309.
• 30. Ng, S.T., D.T. Luu, and S.E. Chen. Decision Criteria and Their Subjectivity in Construction Procurement Selection. The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building 2002; 2(1): 70-80.
• 31. Pesamaa, O., P.E. Eriksson, and J.F. Hair. Validating a model of cooperative procurement in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management 2009; 27: 552–559.
• 32. Piaw, C.Y., Buku 1: Kaedah Penyelidikan. 2nd ed. 2011, Malaysia: McGraw-Hill Companies.
• 33. Pirdashti, M., A. Ghadi, M. Mohammadi, and G. Shojatalab. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Selection Model with Application to Chemical Engineering Management Decisions. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 2009; 49: 54-59.
• 34. Quinn, J.B. and F.G. Hilmer. Strategic outsourcing. Sloan Management Review 1994; 35(4): 43-55.
• 35. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), Building maintenance: strategy, planning and procurement, in RICS guidance note 2nd edition 2009; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS): UK.
• 36. Saaty, T.L., Decision making for leaders : the analytical hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. 1982, United States of America: Lifetime Learning Pub. 286.
• 37. Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences 2008; 1(1): 83-98.
• 38. Saaty, T.L. Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research 1994a; 74(3): 426-447.
• 39. Saaty, T.L. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Interfaces 1994b; 24(6): 19-43.
• 40. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research 1990; 48: 9-26.
• 41. Sheng, L.C. Overview of In-house and Outsourcing Strategies for Property Maintenance and Management Services. The Malaysian Surveyor 2012; 47(1): 54-56.
• 42. Steane, P.D. and D.H.T. Walker. Competitive tendering and contracting public sector services in Australia – a facilities management issue. Facilities 2000; 18(5): 245-255.
• 43. Straub, A. Performance-based maintenance partnering: a promising concept. Journal of Facilities Management 2007; 5(2): 129-142.
• 44. Weston, R. It's hard to buck outsourcing tide. PC Week;7/15/96 1996; 13(28): 1.
• 45. Williams, B., Facilities Management in the UK. 2003, Kent: Building Economics Bureau Ltd.
• 46. Wong, J., Billions wasted, in The Star 2006: Kuching, Malaysia.
• 47. Wordsworth, P., Lee's Building Maintenance Management. 4th ed. 2001, Britain: Blackwell Science.
• 48. Zawawi, E.M.A., S.N. Kamaruzzaman, A.S. Ali, and R. Sulaiman. Assessment of building maintenance management in Malaysia: Resolving using a solution diagram. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property 2010; 9(4): 349–356.