Multi-criteria Optimization System for Decision Making in Construction Design and Management

By Zenonas Turskis, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Friedel Peldschus. The Engineering Economist, 2009

204 citations recorded by the source corpus.

All new ideas and possible variants of decisions mustbe compared according to many criteria. The complexnature of decision-making requires practitioners to selectinvestment options based on a wider variety of policyconsiderations in addition to cost benefit analysis and puretechnical considerations. In economics and decisionmaking it is essential to be able to take into account theimpacts of cultural, social, moral, legislative, demographic,economic, environmental, governmental and technologicalchange, as well as changes in the business world oninternational, national, regional and local markets. Costbenefit analysis approach is a useful tool for investmentdecision-making from an economic perspective. Cautionsshould also be given to the methods of determining thevalue of social and local interests. Some socialexternalities, such as employment and regional economicimpacts, are generally omitted in current practices.Current practices tend to use cardinal or ordinal scales inmeasure in non-monetized criteria. The use of unreasonablemonetization methods in some cases has discredited costbenefit analysis in the eyes of decision makers and thepublic. It may be appropriate to consider these externalities inqualitative forms in a multi-criteria analysis. Multi-criteriadecision making is used in various areas of humanactivities. The Criteria can be qualitative and quantitative.They usually have different units of measurement anddiffer in optimization direction. The normalization aims atobtaining comparable scales of criteria values. In the newversion of the program LEVI 4 the normalization methodsare including vector, linear scale, non-linear and newlogarithmic techniques may be used. This softwareconsiders the main aspects of two-sided game problems.The following strategic principles are used: Wald's rule,Savage criterion, Hurwicz's rule, Laplace's rule, Bayes'srule and Hodges-Lehmann rule. This program isdemonstrated by considering a real case study involving 4evaluation criteria of the currently used external walls ofindividual residential buildings.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8345b4ded170c5069a693a8278c95c73adae3b44

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision‐making (2010, background): “All new ideas and possible variants of decisions must be compared according to many criteria (Turskis et al. 2009).”
The analysis of the quality of the results obtained with the methods of multi‐criteria decisions (2009, methodology): “In a recent development, the logarithmic function was used (Zavadskas and Turskis 2008; Turskis et al. 2009): b a aij ij iji n= =∏ ln( ) ln( )1 , if max i ij a is favourable, (7) b a a nij ij iji n = − − =∏ 1 1 1 ln ln( ) , if min i ij a is favourable.”
Risk assessment of construction projects (2010, methodology): “There is a wide range of methods (Ulubeyli and Kazaz 2009; Jakimavicius and Burinskiene 2009a, b; Plebankiewicz 2009; Liaudanskiene et al. 2009; Liu 2009; Dytczak and Ginda 2009; Podvezko 2009) based on multi-criteria utility theory: SAW – Simple Additive Weighting (Ginevičius et al. 2008b); SAW-G (”
Evaluating the changes in economic and social development of Lithuanian counties by multiple criteria methods (2009, methodology): “…evaluation methods, allowing generalization of the criteria, having various dimensions and changing in various directions, should be used (Ginevičius 2008; Podvezko 2008; Ginevičius, Podvezko 2008d, e; Turskis et al. 2009; Zavadskas et al. 2008a; Brauers et al. 2008b; Ustinovichius et al. 2007).”
The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS (2011, unknown): “…et al. 2007; Kracka et al. 2010; Liaudanskiene et al. 2009; Plebankiewicz 2009; Podvezko 2007, 2009; Podvezko, Podviezko 2010; Selih et al. 2008; Turskis et al. 2009; Ustinovichius et al. 2007; Urbanavicienė et al. 2009a,b; Zavadskas, Vaidogas 2008, Zavadskas et al. 2007a,b, 2010; Zavrl et al.…”
A new fuzzy additive ratio assessment method (ARAS‐F). Case study: The analysis of fuzzy multiple criteria in order to select the logistic centers location (2010, methodology): “…applied and developed a lot of MCDM methods to solve the problems in transport, economics, management and construction (Zavadskas et al. 2008b; Turskis et al. 2009): MEW (Завадскас 1987; Zavadskas et al. 2009a), ordering feasible alternatives of making solutions in terms of preferability…”
Multimoora for the EU member states updated with fuzzy number theory (2011, background): “The issue of weighting is discussed by Brauers, Zavadskas (2010); Zavadskas et al. (2010b), while the problem of normalization is analyzed by Brauers (2007) and Turskis et al. (2009).”