Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281770630
CITATIONS
READS
31
3 authors, including:
Vladislavas Kutut
14 PUBLICATIONS 92 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Graevinar 4/2015
DOI: 10.14256/JCE.1179.2014
Multicriteria assessment of
unfinished construction projects
Authors:
Original scientific paper
Wissenschaftlicher Originalbeitrag
edmundas.zavadskas@vgtu.lt
319
Graevinar 4/2015
1. Introduction
320
Figure 2. Alternative a1
Table 1. Factors for the assessment of alternatives
Criterion
Description
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
x10
Graevinar 4/2015
purposes of public safety. In this case, the authors have selected
five major abandoned construction projects in Vilnius, the successful
completion of which would provide maximum economic and social
added value for the city. Estimated construction values and other
statistical data have been evaluated by the authors.
Take any city around the world and you see that its environment
interacts with multiple stakeholder groups. Vilnius is no exception.
Here the setting of interaction is closely related to governmental
agencies, businesses, religious communities, investors, inhabitants,
and visiting foreign tourists. The nature and civilisation are
intertwined in close interaction, which must be maintained to
secure the interests of both parties. To secure interests of multiple
stakeholder groups, we need computational methods that make
it possible to consider the contribution of each stakeholder group
to the decision. To solve this problem, which is an integrated
implementation of a construction project, the assessment criteria
listed in Table 1 were selected.
To make our analysis, five unfinished construction projects - with
only some part of the construction work finished - were selected
as unfinished construction project alternatives. The assessment
criterion x1 considers how much the construction company taking
over the construction project must invest into it. The amounts
invested into the construction site by the previous builder can be
assessed in two ways, i.e. that the investment project is on offer by
a struggling legal entity or by a bankruptcy administrator in charge
of the disposal of the assets of a bankrupt construction market
participant, and looking to dispose of the available property for an
adequate price. The mental benefits of this criterion can also be
assessed in two ways: the lower the investment, the more chances
there are to choose proper technology, to ensure high-quality work
on the current structures, and to revise spatial and layout solutions;
as the required investment grows, it instils an attitude that some
completed structures are available and that this would permit rapid
completion of the project. In the problem considered in this paper,
the rational path based on the sustainable construction approach
was selected: the smallest possible investment is sought with
an aim to make a reasonable revision of the projects solutions by
adopting modern technologies and taking heed of consumer needs.
The assessment criterion x2 looks at basic estimated construction
prices; it is used to determine how much additional investment is
needed for this construction project. Construction estimates were
made under assumption that all these buildings will be used for
residential construction, the goal being to make a finished product
with fully equipped interiors, main and individual plumbing fixtures,
furniture, and so on - all the necessities that make flats ready for
moving in.
The assessment criteria x3, x4, x6 and x10 attempt to assess the
relationship between the current property market and the planned
construction project. The criteria were selected taking into account
the situation on the property market in and around the district in
question. The criteria seek to assess whether the construction
product, once it is finished, will be attractive both in the property
sales and rental markets. Obviously, the more attractive the product
is to consumers, the sooner the construction project will pay off and
deliver gains.
321
Graevinar 4/2015
322
(i = 1 to 10)
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
x10
x1
x2
1/4
1/8
x3
1/3 1/3
x4
x5
x6
x7
1/4
x8
1/3 1/3
x9
x10
1/2
1
4
1
Graevinar 4/2015
Criteria
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
x10
10
72.000.00
86,400.00
48.00
9.60
0.0094
0.0042
0.0007
142.22
0.0002
0.0005
Step II
10
3.060
3.116
1.473
1.254
0.627
0.578
0.483
1.642
0.421
0.470
Step III
10
0.233
0.237
0.112
0.096
0.048
0.044
0.037
0.125
0.032
0.036
Step I
Calculated elements
aij of all Experts
Criteria
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
x10
max.1
max.2
max.3
max.4
max.5
max.6
max.7
max.8
max.9
max.10
10.846
10.57
10.577
11.974
11.22
11.487
11.759
11.479
11.417
11.487
10
11
12
0.58
0.9
1.12
1.24
1.32
1.41
1.45
1.49
1.51
1.48
Step V
Matrix consistency
The values of a random
consistency index, matrix
order SA
Consistency
Si = 0.096
The value is below 0.1, and so the matrix is consistent and experts estimates are in agreement
323
Graevinar 4/2015
Alternatives
a1
a2
a3
a4
a5
x1
1,611
1,278
0,763
1,343
1,175
x2
12,843
10,071
5,318
10,645
9,505
x3
1,606
1,261
1,216
1,332
1,335
x4
7,70
7,30
5,30
4,90
5,80
x5
0,63
0,68
0,20
0,78
0,58
x6
x7
1,768
980
1,842
1,008
1,615
x8
0,686
0,378
0,140
0,460
1,050
x9
10
x10
157
96
114
153
157
Criteria
Criteria weight
Alternatives
Optimum
a0
a1
a2
a3
a4
a5
x1
0.233
min.
1/0.763
1/1.611
1/1.278
1/0.763
1/1.343
1/1.175
x2
0.237
min.
1/5.318
1/12.843
1/10.071
1/5.318
1/10.645
1/9.505
x3
0.112
max.
1.606
1.606
1.261
1.216
1.332
1.335
x4
0.096
maks.
7.7
7.7
7.3
5.3
4.9
5.8
x5
0.048
min.
1/0.20
1/0.63
1/0.68
1/0.20
1/0.78
1/0.58
x6
0.044
min.
1/2
1/9
1/7
1/2
1/4
1/8
x7
0.037
min.
1/1.008
1/1.768
1/980
1/1.842
1/1.008
1/1.615
x8
0.125
min.
1/0.140
1/0.686
1/0.378
1/0.140
1/0.460
1/1.050
x9
0.032
max.
10
10
x10
0.036
min.
1/96
1/157
1/96
1/114
1/153
1/157
Value of
optimality
function i-th
alternative
0.247
0.12
0.144
0.226
0.133
0.13
Utility
level
0.485
0.585
0.918
0.54
0.526
324
Graevinar 4/2015
(1)
where:
m - number of alternatives
xij - matrix value i of alternative of j factor
x*ij - minimising value of factor a
- tandardised value of factor s.
When criteria weights are standardised then all weights,
described within the first stage by different measurement
dimensions, gain their equivalent values.
Alternative indicator
Calculation steps
xi
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
a1
1.611
12.843
1.606
7.7
0.63
1.768
a2
1.278
10.071
1.261
7.3
0.68
980
a3
0.763
5.318
1.216
5.3
0.2
1.842
a4
1.343
10.645
1.332
4.9
0.78
1.008
a5
1.175
9.505
1.335
5.8
0.58
1.615
1.05
157
a1
0.57
0.575
0.529
0.547
0.464
0.615
0.001
0.492
0.296
0.006
a2
0.452
0.451
0.416
0.518
0.501
0.479
0.0003
0.271
0.532
0.004
a3
0.27
0.238
0.401
0.376
0.147
0.137
0.001
0.1
0.237
0.005
a4
0.475
0.477
0.439
0.348
0.574
0.273
0.0003
0.33
0.591
0.006
a5
0.416
0.426
0.44
0.412
0.427
0.547
0.001
0.752
0.473
0.006
Way
min.
min.
max.
max.
min.
min.
min.
min.
max.
min.
Step I
Alternatives
ai
Step II
Data normalisation
x8
x9
x10
0.686
157
0.378
96
0.14
114
0.46
10
153
Step III
The ratio system
RS
Step IV
The reference point
(RP)
r1
0.27
0.238
a1 = 0.479
0.529
0.547
a2 = 0.353
0.147
0.137
a3 = 0.355
0.0003
0.1
a4 = 0.427
0.591
0.004
a5 = 0.652
RS rank:
325
326
Final rank
Ranking sum
Full
multiplicative
form
The combined use of AHP and ARAS shows that the most
suitable project is the alternative a3.
ARAS method
rank
Alternatives
Graevinar 4/2015
a1
14
a2
a3
a4
a5
13
Reference
point
5. Conclusion
When it comes to making the right decision, it is important,
in any life situation, to consider all available information that
may prove helpful for achieving the goal. In case of unfinished
construction projects, we must also take note of the available
information, and rate the success of our intended project as
clearly as possible, in order to avoid risky decisions. This paper
introduces a computing model for assessing the information and
criteria that describe projects. Problems faced within a particular
sphere of construction, and related to efficient implementation
of projects and efficient implementation of abandoned
construction projects, are relevant for the construction market
of Lithuania, although the decision-making methods described
herein could well be adapted to local circumstances and used
for assessment of construction facilities in other countries.
Graevinar 4/2015
Naturally, we considered only some of the wide array
of possible criteria that cover design, construction and
maintenance. However, the complete implementation cycle of
a construction project should be described by a much greater
number of criteria, with an in-depth analysis at each area of
the construction process or technology. A project engages
various social groups, and their interests have to be restricted,
to ensure that the project is successful. Consequently, the
most rational solutions can be obtained by applying scientific
methods that take into account and evaluate large volumes of
information.
Out of numerous MCDM methods available around the world,
the complex AHP and ARAS, MOORA and MULTIMOORA
methods were applied in the paper to find the solution and
determine the most suitable alternative. Expert estimations
were weighted using the AHP method. The ARAS, MOORA and
MULTIMOORA methods were applied to determine the most
suitable alternative.
Calculations based on these methods revealed that, in the
current market situation, construction companies should choose
the construction project alternative a3 for their investment
project. It is an unfinished block of flats abandoned during the
construction crisis. The potential of this alternative lies in the
fact that it is a residential building close to the Old Town, next
to new high-capacity urban roads, while also being located in a
strategically attractive urban area.
REFERENCES
[1] Kang, H. H., Liu, Sh. B.: The impact of the 2008 financial crisis
on housing prices in China and Taiwan: A quantile regression
analysis, Economic Modelling, 42, pp. 356362, 2014.,
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.07.018
[2] Auerbach, A. J., Gale, W. G., Harris, B.H.: Activist Fiscal Policy,
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(4), pp. 141-163, 2010.,
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.4.141
[3] Hall, R.E.: Why Does the Economy Fall to Pieces after a Financial
Crisis?, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(4), pp. 320, 2010.,
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.4.3
[4] Mishkin, F.S.: Over the Cliff: From the Subprime to the Global
Financial Crisis, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(1), pp. 49-70,
2011., doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.1.49
[5]
Angelopoulou, E., Balfoussia, H., Gibson, H. D.: Building a
financial conditions index for the euro area and selected euro
area countries: What does it tell us about the crisis?, Economic
Modelling, 38, pp. 392403, 2014., doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
econmod.2014.01.013
[6] Taylan, O., Bafail, A. O., Abdulaal, R., Kabli, M. R.: Construction
projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy
TOPSIS methodologies, Applied Soft Computing, 17, pp. 105116,
2014., doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.01.003
327
Graevinar 4/2015
[12] Saaty, T. L., Vargas, L. G., Dellmann, K.: The allocation of intangible
resources: the analytic hierarchy process and linear programming,
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 37(3), pp. 169184, 2003.,
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0121(02)00039-3
[13] Aydogan, E. K.: Performance measurement model for Turkish
aviation firms using the roughAHP and TOPSIS methods under
fuzzy environment, Expert Systems With Applications, 38, pp. 3992
3998, 2011., doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.060
[14] Ramanathan, R.: A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy
process for environmental impact assessment, Journal of
Environmental Management, 63, pp. 2735, 2001., doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0455
[15]
Saaty, T. L., Shang, J. S.: An innovative orders-of-magnitude
approach to AHP-based mutli-criteria decision making:
Prioritizing divergent intangible humane act, European Journal
of Operational Research, 214(3), pp. 703-715, 2011., dopi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.05.019
[16] Heo, E., Kim, J., Boo, K. J.: Analysis of the assessment factors for
renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy
AHP, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(8), pp. 2214
2220, 2010., doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.01.020
[17] Sivileviius, H.: Modelling the interaction of transport system
elements, Transport, pp. 26(1), pp. 2034, 2011.
[18] Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1980.
328