上傳人：奔***

認證信息

認證類型：個人認證

認證主體：常**（實名認證）

IP屬地：河北

IP屬地：河北 更新時間：2024-03-13 格式：pdf 頁數(shù)：6 大小：145.91KB 人氣指數(shù)：12 舉報 版權(quán)申訴

1、Selecting the appropriate project delivery method using AHPMohammed I. Al Khalil*Department of Construction Engineering and Management, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, PO Box 426, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Ara

2、biaReceived 3 October 2000; received in revised form 26 January 2001; accepted 21 March 2001AbstractA model using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is developed to select the most appropriate project delivery method

3、. Sev- eral factors considered to be relevant to the selection decision are used in the ranking of the project delivery methods. Project owners are keen to choose an appropriate project delivery method because it could b

4、e a key project success factor. The model developed in this paper is simple to use and allows the owner to consider all decision-relevant factors. It is based on an intuitively appealing methodology, AHP. # 2002 Elsevier

5、 Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.Keywords: Project delivery; AHP; Design–bid–build; Design–build; Construction management1. IntroductionThis paper deals with selecting the appropriate method of project delivery

6、. The selection is an essential step in defining an overall project delivery strategy. Three project delivery methods are considered in this study: The design–bid–build (DBB) method, the design– bid (DB) method, and the

7、construction management (CM) method. To determine which of these methods is most appropriate, the owner must consider several fac- tors pertinent to the decision. Several studies have dis- cussed these methods and presen

8、ted the advantages and disadvantages of each. Gordon [1] suggested using jud- gement to eliminate inappropriate methods. Spink [2] discussed the particular circumstances that make a par- ticular project delivery system s

9、uitable; and presented graphical guidelines as an aid to making a selection between the design-bid-build and the design-build methods. Molenaar and Songer [3] developed a web- based selection tool for selecting projects

10、that are appropriate for design-build delivery method. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is a multi- criteria decision-making method developed by Saaty [4]. It has been applied to solve unstructured problems in a va

11、riety of decision-making situations, ranging from thesimple personal decisions to the complex capital inten- sive decisions. The application of AHP is carried out in two stages: hierarchic design and evaluation [4]. The

12、design of the hierarchy involves structuring all the pro- blem elements into a hierarchy. At each level, the ele- ments are broken down into components, which constitute the level below. In the evaluation stage, the elem

13、ents in a level of the hierarchy are compared in pair-wise comparisons with respect to each of the ele- ments in the level directly above. A rating scale of 1 to 9 is used for the pair-wise comparisons. The process of co

14、mparison yields a relative ranking of priorities of the elements with respect to the criterion element they were compared against. The final ranking of the elements at the bottom level (the alternatives) is obtained by a

15、ggre- gating the contribution of the elements at all levels to each of the alternatives. The computational procedure is thoroughly discussed in Saaty [5]. Choosing an appropriate method is an essential deci- sion for the

16、 owner; yet such a decision can be confound- ing with the numerous factors that need to be considered. This paper presents an AHP model to determine the appropriate project delivery method. The AHP model developed her is

17、 based on several factors that can be grouped under the three major categories of project characteristics, owner’s needs, and owner’s preferences. At least two reasons explain the choice of the AHP in this study. First,

18、the ability of the method to incorporate tangible and intangible factors that would otherwise be0263-7863/02/$22.00 # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. PII: S0263-7863(01)00032-1International Journ

19、al of Project Management 20 (2002) 469–474 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman* Corresponding author. Tel.: +966-3-860-3715; afx: +966-3-860- 4453. E-mail address: alkhalil@kfupm.edu.sa (M.I. Al Khalil).3. Development of th

20、e AHP modelThe design of the AHP hierarchy must satisfy the goal of developing a model that will allow construction pro- jects owners to decide which project delivery method is more appropriate for their particular situa

21、tion. The hierarchy developed in this study consists of five levels as shown in Fig. 1. The top level represents the goal of selecting a project delivery method. The last level is represented by the three alternative del

22、ivery methods. The objectives of selecting a delivery method is to adequately meet the project and owner require- ments as represented by the three major categories of project characteristics, owner’s needs, and owner’s

23、preferences. Thus, these objectives were assigned to the level just below the top level. The third level constitutes the subcategories of these three major objectives. Under project characteristics the subcategories incl

24、uded are the project scope definition, schedule, complexity, and method of pricing. The owner’s needs vary from project to project and may include such requirements as constructibility stud- ies, value engineering studie

25、s, contract packaging, and feasibility studies. The owner’s preferences include con- tract responsibility, design control by owner, and degree of involvement after contract award. The fourth level contains the actual con

26、ditions of the subcategories. The factors in the hierarchy are discussed in the next section.4. Factors affecting project delivery method selectionSeveral factors affect the decision to select a project delivery method (

27、PDM). In the model these factors are grouped under three categories: project characteristics, owner’s needs, and owner’s preferences.4.1. Project characteristics4.1.1. Clarity of scope The clarity of the project scope an

28、d requirements of the owner can affect the decision to select a PDM. Generally a DB approach requires a well-defined scope where the project requirements can be determined early in the design process. Other methods are m

29、ore appro- priate if the scope is vague and its definition is evolving.4.1.2. Schedule Time is a major constraint in most projects. The owner must determine if a fast track schedule is neces- sary. In the traditional DBB

30、 method, the project dura- tion is lengthy because of the serial sequencing of phases. Fast tracking results in reducing this normal duration and can be achieved by either of the other two methods.4.1.3. Complexity Wheth

31、er a project is a standard, repetitive design or a complex unique design is also a factor in selecting a preferred PDM. Generally a DB is suitable for a stan- dard design. In the case of a complex design DBB may be used.

32、 If the owner also requires additional services such as a fast track schedule, the CM method may be the preferred approach.4.1.4. Contract pricing Contracts may be priced as lump sum, or cost plus. The DBB and the DB met

33、hods may be more suitable under a lump-sum contract, while the CM is generally the preferred method for cost-plus contracts.4.2. Owner’s needsThe owner may have additional requirements and consequently must decide which

34、of the organization types would be better at meeting those requirements. The PDM selection model must be flexible with regards to owner’s needs because they may vary from project to project. The model must be able to pro

35、cess varying lists of owner needs. Owner’s requirements may include the following:a. constructibility studies; b. value engineering studies; c. contract packaging; and d. feasibility studies.4.3. Owner’s preferences4.3.1

36、. Responsibility Some owners may prefer the characteristic of DB contracts of a single point responsibility. In a DB sys- tem, the contractor is responsible for both design and construction errors. However, in such a sit

37、uation there may be a tendency to cover some of the errors. Hence, other owners may prefer other types of systems which provide for checks and balances between design and construction.4.3.2. Design control Owners must de

38、termine how much they want to be involved with the design process to influence the final outcome of the design. A high level of involvement may be necessary if the owner wishes to generate a creative design or a special

39、appearance which he has in mind. In such a case, a DBB or a CM approach would be more appropriate. The owner may have limited control of detailed design under a DB approach.4.3.3. Owner’s involvement after award of contr