IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i3p776-d202965.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A New Hybrid MCDM Model with Grey Numbers for the Construction Delay Change Response Problem

Author

Listed:
  • Alireza Chalekaee

    (Construction Engineering and Management, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science & Technology, Narmak, Tehran 16846, Iran
    Laboratory of Operational Research, Institute of Sustainable Construction, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Zenonas Turskis

    (Laboratory of Operational Research, Institute of Sustainable Construction, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Mostafa Khanzadi

    (Construction Engineering and Management, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science & Technology, Narmak, Tehran 16846, Iran)

  • Gholamreza Ghodrati Amiri

    (Center of Excellence for Fundamental Studies in Structural Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science & Technology, Narmak, Tehran 16846, Iran)

  • Violeta Keršulienė

    (Department of Law, Faculty of Business Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

Stakeholders carry out construction projects under fast-changing conditions. The conditions can undermine the concept of a stable and prosperous construction plan without an appropriate permit and an active and targeted plan for environmental management. Therefore, the decision maker often faces many challenges of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) when it comes to solving the construction management proper response selection problem for planning delay changes when sustainable environment requirements are essential. Any addition, reduction, or modification of the original project plan is a change to the project and impacts the environment. Change occurrence is a probable issue while projects are implemented. One of the most complex tasks for the project manager is to work correctly and to find the most suitable decisions for the not precisely predetermined future expectations of a change. Therefore, the relevant criteria of values must reflect the uncertain properties of the problem model. Similar problems require fuzzy or grey MCDM methods. The paper introduces a new MCDM approach, which combines four different MCDM methods with grey numbers: the SWARA, TOPSIS-GM, Additive Ratio ASsessment with Grey Numbers (ARAS-G) techniques and Geometric Mean to cover uncertainty and improve the problem-solving model. An analysis of a case study has examined and highlighted four possible alternatives described by eight performance criteria (cost, duration, and some linguistic criteria). Stakeholders determined the best alternative, calculated the efficiency of choice, and practically implemented the best option.

Suggested Citation

  • Alireza Chalekaee & Zenonas Turskis & Mostafa Khanzadi & Gholamreza Ghodrati Amiri & Violeta Keršulienė, 2019. "A New Hybrid MCDM Model with Grey Numbers for the Construction Delay Change Response Problem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:3:p:776-:d:202965
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/776/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/776/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dvir, Dov & Lechler, Thomas, 2004. "Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: the impact of changes on project success," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hamidreza Khalesi & Amirhossein Balali & Alireza Valipour & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Darius Migilinskas & Viaceslav Zigmund, 2020. "Application of Hybrid SWARA–BIM in Reducing Reworks of Building Construction Projects from the Perspective of Time," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee & Maghsoud Amiri & Mohammad Hashemi-Tabatabaei & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2020. "A New Decision-Making Approach Based on Fermatean Fuzzy Sets and WASPAS for Green Construction Supplier Evaluation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Ioannis E. Tsolas, 2020. "Financial Performance Assessment of Construction Firms by Means of RAM-Based Composite Indicators," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-16, August.
    4. Osman Kazancı & Sarka Hoskova-Mayerova & Bijan Davvaz, 2022. "Multipolar Fuzzy Hyperideals in Ordered Semihypergroups," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-11, September.
    5. Seyed Morteza Hatefi & Hamideh Asadi & Gholamreza Shams & Jolanta Tamošaitienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2021. "Model for the Sustainable Material Selection by Applying Integrated Dempster-Shafer Evidence Theory and Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Mimica R. Milošević & Dušan M. Milošević & Ana D. Stanojević & Dragan M. Stević & Dušan J. Simjanović, 2021. "Fuzzy and Interval AHP Approaches in Sustainable Management for the Architectural Heritage in Smart Cities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29, February.
    7. Shoaib Shafique & Iram Naz, 2023. "A Mediating and Moderating Analysis of the Relationship Between Team Emotional Intelligence and Team Performance," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    2. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    3. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    4. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    5. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    6. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    7. Luis Pérez-Domínguez & Luis Alberto Rodríguez-Picón & Alejandro Alvarado-Iniesta & David Luviano Cruz & Zeshui Xu, 2018. "MOORA under Pythagorean Fuzzy Set for Multiple Criteria Decision Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, April.
    8. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    9. Kumar B, Pradeep, 2021. "Changing Objectives of Firms and Managerial Preferences: A Review of Models in Microeconomics," MPRA Paper 106967, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2021.
    10. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Anirban Mukhopadhyay & Sugata Hazra & Debasish Mitra & C. Hutton & Abhra Chanda & Sandip Mukherjee, 2016. "Characterizing the multi-risk with respect to plausible natural hazards in the Balasore coast, Odisha, India: a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) appraisal," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1495-1513, February.
    12. Chamoli, Sunil, 2015. "Hybrid FAHP (fuzzy analytical hierarchy process)-FTOPSIS (fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity of an ideal solution) approach for performance evaluation of the V down perforated baffle r," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 432-442.
    13. H. S. C. Perera & W. K. R. Costa, 2008. "Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selection of Erp Software for Manufacturing Companies," Vision, , vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, October.
    14. G. La Scalia & F.P. Marra & J. Rühl & R. Sciortino & T. Caruso, 2016. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodology to optimise olive agro-engineering processes based on geo-spatial technologies," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15.
    15. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    16. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    17. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    18. Majid Ebrahimi & Hamid Nejadsoleymani & Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar, 2019. "Land suitability map and ecological carrying capacity for the recognition of touristic zones in the Kalat region, Iran: a multi-criteria analysis based on AHP and GIS," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 697-718, October.
    19. Zeshui Xu, 2013. "Compatibility Analysis of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 463-482, May.
    20. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:3:p:776-:d:202965. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.