IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jnlmpe/v2023y2023i1n1414294.html

A TOPSIS‐Based Decision Model to Establish Priorities for Sequencing the Design of Construction Projects in the Public Sector

Author

Listed:
  • C. R. S. M. S. Nascimento
  • A. T. de Almeida-Filho
  • R. P. Palha

Abstract

The availability of resources regarding budget and personnel for infrastructure development in the public sector is increasingly scarce, prioritizing personnel payments and basic expenses. Therefore, there is a need to prioritize the design of maintenance, refurbishment, and construction projects. Also, it is necessary to validate their impact and necessity before allocating public resources. The main contribution of this paper is a framework proposed to handle these issues frequently found in the public sector with a multicriteria approach, considering strategic and service aspects. To illustrate the proposed model, we considered the context of a federal institution of higher education that offers an infrastructure for about forty thousand students. This public institution is affected by issues of conjuncture and opportunities arising from political moments that hinder consistent programming for better allocation of these resources. Similarly to other institutions in the public sector, the chosen one has to cope with several demands for construction projects. However, limited resources and personnel to carry out those project designs are subject to the uncertainty of not having the financial resources to implement these construction projects. Or even worse, when unforeseen, funds to carry out specific projects arise without a feasible time to design those construction projects that the public institution did not prioritize. Thus, another contribution of the decision model proposed in this paper is to enable the department responsible for projects to establish the ranking for the project design, considering the multiple criteria that reflect the institution’s needs. Among the advantages perceived from this real application, there is a priority ranking resulting from a mathematical model based on the TOPSIS method, which is easy to understand. Furthermore, the proposed approach gives the transparency and reproducibility required in such a public and democratic environment, enabling transparency on the criteria considered in the allocation process for all personnel involved considering the actors that manage the resources and those which demand the project design services.

Suggested Citation

  • C. R. S. M. S. Nascimento & A. T. de Almeida-Filho & R. P. Palha, 2023. "A TOPSIS‐Based Decision Model to Establish Priorities for Sequencing the Design of Construction Projects in the Public Sector," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2023(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jnlmpe:v:2023:y:2023:i:1:n:1414294
    DOI: 10.1155/2023/1414294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1414294
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2023/1414294?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amin Mahmoudi & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2023. "Uncertainty Analysis in Group Decisions through Interval Ordinal Priority Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 807-833, August.
    2. Linqi Huang & Shaofeng Wang & Xin Cai & Zhengyang Song, 2022. "Mathematical Problems in Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-3, December.
    3. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    4. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Al-Alawi, Baha M. & Coker, Alexander D., 2018. "Multi-criteria decision support system with negotiation process for vehicle technology selection," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 278-296.
    5. Abbas Roozbahani & Ebrahim Ebrahimi & Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib, 2018. "A Framework for Ground Water Management Based on Bayesian Network and MCDM Techniques," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(15), pages 4985-5005, December.
    6. A. Nureize & J. Watada & S. Wang, 2014. "Fuzzy random regression based multi-attribute evaluation and its application to oil palm fruit grading," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 219(1), pages 299-315, August.
    7. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    8. Mohammad Rahman & Lena Jaumann & Nils Lerche & Fabian Renatus & Ann Buchs & Rudolf Gade & Jutta Geldermann & Martin Sauter, 2015. "Selection of the Best Inland Waterway Structure: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2733-2749, June.
    9. Martina Kuncova & Jana Seknickova, 2022. "Two-stage weighted PROMETHEE II with results’ visualization," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(2), pages 547-571, June.
    10. Kuszewski, Tomasz & Sielska, Agata, . "Efektywność sektora rolnego w województwach przed i po akcesji Polski do Unii Europejskiej," Gospodarka Narodowa-The Polish Journal of Economics, Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie / SGH Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 2012(3).
    11. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2019. "Sigma-Mu efficiency analysis: A methodology for evaluating units through composite indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 942-960.
    12. Rahimdel, Mohammad Javad & Noferesti, Hossein, 2020. "Investment preferences of Iran's mineral extraction sector with a focus on the productivity of the energy consumption, water and labor force," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Hassan, Mohammad Nurul & Hawas, Yaser E. & Ahmed, Kamran, 2013. "A multi-dimensional framework for evaluating the transit service performance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 47-61.
    14. Ruiz, Francisco & El Gibari, Samira & Cabello, José M. & Gómez, Trinidad, 2020. "MRP-WSCI: Multiple reference point based weak and strong composite indicators," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    15. G Özerol & E Karasakal, 2008. "Interactive outranking approaches for multicriteria decision-making problems with imprecise information," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(9), pages 1253-1268, September.
    16. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    17. Daniel R. Georgiadis & Thomas A. Mazzuchi & Shahram Sarkani, 2013. "Using multi criteria decision making in analysis of alternatives for selection of enabling technology," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 287-303, September.
    18. Kodikara, P.N. & Perera, B.J.C. & Kularathna, M.D.U.P., 2010. "Stakeholder preference elicitation and modelling in multi-criteria decision analysis - A case study on urban water supply," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 209-220, October.
    19. Diaz-Balteiro, L & González-Pachón, J. & Romero, C., 2017. "Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 607-616.
    20. Misbah Anjum & Vernika Agarwal & P. K. Kapur & Sunil Kumar Khatri, 2020. "Two-phase methodology for prioritization and utility assessment of software vulnerabilities," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 11(2), pages 289-300, July.

    More about this item

    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:wly:jnlmpe:v:2023:y:2023:i:1:n:1414294. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2629 .

    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.