IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i11p4606-d367432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Criteria Decision Making of Contractor Selection in Mass Rapid Transit Station Development Using Bayesian Fuzzy Prospect Model

Author

Listed:
  • Min-Yuan Cheng

    (Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei 10672, Taiwan)

  • Shu-Hua Yeh

    (Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei 10672, Taiwan)

  • Woei-Chyi Chang

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Construction Engineering and Management Division, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

Abstract

In Taiwan, the most advantageous tender in governmental procurement is the selection of a general contractor based on a score or ranking evaluated by a committee. Due to personal, subjective preferences, the contractor selection of committee members may be different, causing cognitive difference between the results of the members’ selection and the preliminary opinions provided by the working group. Integrated, multi-criteria decision making techniques, combined with preference relation, Bayesian, fuzzy utility, and prospect theories are used to assess factors weighing up the duration/cost/quality, probability of external information, and utility function system. The paper proposes a Bayesian fuzzy prospect model for group decision making, based on probability and utility multiplied relation, and taking the sustainable development factors into consideration. This study aims to provide committees with an objective model to select the best contractor for public construction projects. The results of this study can avoid the lowest bidder being selected; besides, the score gap of contractor selection can be increased, and the difference between the top three contractors’ scores can be decreased as well. In addition to proposing an innovative decision-making system of contractor selection and an index weight-assessing system for sustainable development, this model will be widely applied and sustainably updated for other cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Min-Yuan Cheng & Shu-Hua Yeh & Woei-Chyi Chang, 2020. "Multi-Criteria Decision Making of Contractor Selection in Mass Rapid Transit Station Development Using Bayesian Fuzzy Prospect Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-32, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:11:p:4606-:d:367432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4606/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4606/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zydrune Morkunaite & Romualdas Bausys & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, 2019. "Contractor Selection for Sgraffito Decoration of Cultural Heritage Buildings Using the WASPAS-SVNS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-25, November.
    2. Weber, Charles A. & Current, John R. & Benton, W. C., 1991. "Vendor selection criteria and methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 2-18, January.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Rick Best & Craig Langston, 2006. "Evaluation of construction contractor performance: a critical analysis of some recent research," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 439-445.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F. & Chiclana, F. & Luque, M., 2004. "Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(1), pages 98-109, April.
    7. Zenonas Turskis & Nikolaj Goranin & Assel Nurusheva & Seilkhan Boranbayev, 2019. "A Fuzzy WASPAS-Based Approach to Determine Critical Information Infrastructures of EU Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-25, January.
    8. Agnieszka Leśniak & Filip Janowiec, 2019. "Risk Assessment of Additional Works in Railway Construction Investments Using the Bayes Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-15, September.
    9. Yi Zhang, 2020. "Construction of Bid Evaluation Index System in Government Public Project Green Procurement in China Based on D-S Evidence Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-15, January.
    10. Qingpeng Cao & Moses Olabhele Esangbedo & Sijun Bai & Caroline Olufunke Esangbedo, 2019. "Grey SWARA-FUCOM Weighting Method for Contractor Selection MCDM Problem: A Case Study of Floating Solar Panel Energy System Installation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-30, June.
    11. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    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. Khoso, Ali Raza & Yusof, Aminah Md & Chen, Zhen-Song & Skibniewski, Mirosław J. & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Khahro, Shabir Hussain & Sohu, Samiullah, 2022. "Comprehensive analysis of state-of-the-art contractor selection models in construction environment-A critical review and future call," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    2. Aziz Naghizadeh Vardin & Ramin Ansari & Mohammad Khalilzadeh & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Romualdas Bausys, 2021. "An Integrated Decision Support Model Based on BWM and Fuzzy-VIKOR Techniques for Contractor Selection in Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-28, June.
    3. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.

    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. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    2. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    3. Xue Dong He & Sang Hu & Jan Obłój & Xun Yu Zhou, 2017. "Technical Note—Path-Dependent and Randomized Strategies in Barberis’ Casino Gambling Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 97-103, February.
    4. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    5. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, "undated". "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    7. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    8. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    9. Yves Alarie & Georges Dionne, 2005. "Testing Explanations of Preference Reversal: a Model," Cahiers de recherche 0510, CIRPEE.
    10. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2010. "Linking Decision and Time Utilities," MPRA Paper 27541, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Stein T. Holden & Mesfin Tilahun, 2024. "Can Climate Shocks Make Vulnerable Subjects More Willing to Take Risks?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(4), pages 967-1007, April.
    12. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    13. Géraldine Bocqueho & Marc Deschamps & Jenny Helstroffer & Julien Jacob & Majlinda Joxhe & Ofce Observatoire Français Des Conjonctures Économiques, 2018. "The risk and refugee migration," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03607866, HAL.
    14. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    15. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    16. Nina Mazar & Kristina Shampanier & Dan Ariely, 2017. "When Retailing and Las Vegas Meet: Probabilistic Free Price Promotions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 250-266, January.
    17. Víctor González-Jiménez, 2021. "Incentive contracts when agents distort probabilities," Vienna Economics Papers vie2101, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    18. Lei Wang & Qing Liu & Tongle Yin, 2018. "Decision-making of investment in navigation safety improving schemes with application of cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 232(6), pages 710-724, December.
    19. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari, 2023. "Risk Preference Types, Limited Consideration, and Welfare," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 1011-1029, October.
    20. Stephen G Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2021. "Household Portfolio Underdiversification and Probability Weighting: Evidence from the Field," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(9), pages 4524-4563.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:12:y:2020:i:11:p:4606-:d:367432. 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.