SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Karaelmas Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2

Trends on MCDM in Construction Management from 2019 to 2022 Based on a SWOT Analysis

2019’dan 2022’ye İnşaat Yönetiminde Kullanılan ÇKKV Yöntemlerinin SWOT Analizine Dayalı Olarak Değerlendirilmesi

Burak Öz(ZONGULDAK BÜLENT ECEVİT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0686-1410
Pages
292–308
Publication Date
2023-12-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Using the findings of this study, researchers will be able to plan their future original studies based on opportunities identified, as well as improve possible weaknesses and eliminate threats outlined in previous studies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to investigate publications utilizing multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods in construction management to identify their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats through a SWOT analysis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A variety of academic search engines was used to systematically search publications between January 2019 and May 2022 for this purpose.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Using the findings of this study, researchers will be able to plan their future original studies based on opportunities identified, as well as improve possible weaknesses and eliminate threats outlined in previous studies.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İnşaat yönetimi · ÇKKV · SWOT

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate publications utilizing multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods in construction management to identify their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats through a SWOT analysis. A variety of academic search engines was used to systematically search publications between January 2019 and May 2022 for this purpose. An in-depth analysis of 249 articles was conducted; first, they were ranked based on academic databases, indexes, and years, then they were classified according to their major applications in construction management, and finally, a SWOT analysis was carried out. The studies demonstrate that these methods improve the consistency and robustness of decision-making; however, they mainly concentrate on macro-level aspects, which is considered a disadvantage. Even though models heavily rely on participants’ knowledge and experience, they can be eliminated by integrating perspectives from a variety of experts and professionals. Using the findings of this study, researchers will be able to plan their future original studies based on opportunities identified, as well as improve possible weaknesses and eliminate threats outlined in previous studies.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, inşaat yönetiminde çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) yöntemlerini kullanan yayınları inceleyerek güçlü ve zayıf yönlerini, fırsatları ve tehditleri SWOT analizi yoluyla tespit edip ortaya çıkarmaktır. Bu amaçla Ocak 2019 ile Mayıs 2022 tarihleri arasındaki yayınların sistematik olarak taranmasında çeşitli akademik arama motorları kullanıldı. Ulaşılan makalelerden 249’u derinlemesine analiz edildi; öncelikle akademik veritabanlarına, indekslere ve yıllara göre sıralandı, ardından inşaat yönetimindeki başlıca uygulamalarına göre sınıflandırıldı ve son olarak SWOT analizleri yapıldı. Araştırmalar, bu yöntemlerin karar vermenin tutarlılığını ve sağlamlığını artırdığını göstermekle birlikte esas olarak makro düzeydeki yönlere yoğunlaştığını belirtmekte ve bu da dezavantaj olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Modeller ağırlıklı olarak katılımcıların bilgi ve deneyimlerine dayansa da, çeşitli uzman ve profesyonellerin bakış açılarının entegre edilmesiyle bu durumun ortadan kaldırılabileceği kanaatine varılmıştır. Bu çalışma, araştırmacıların bu konularda geçmiş çalışmalarda fırsat olarak tespit edilen özgün çalışmalarını planlamalarının yanı sıra olası zayıf yönlerin iyileştirilmesi ve tehditlerin ortadan kaldırılması açısından da oldukça katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Öz, B. (2023). Trends on MCDM in Construction Management from 2019 to 2022 Based on a SWOT Analysis. Karaelmas Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 292–308. https://doi.org/10.7212/karaelmasfen.1348346

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (64)

  1. Abdelkader, E. M., Moselhi, O., Marzouk, M., & Zayed, T. 2021. Integrative evolutionary-based method for modeling and optimizing budget assignment of bridge maintenance priorities. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(9). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002113
  2. Abdelkader, E. M., Moselhi, O., Marzouk, M., & Zayed, T. 2022. An exponential chaotic differential evolution algorithm for optimizing bridge maintenance plans. Automation in Construction, 134, 104107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. autcon.2021.104107
  3. Abdullah, A. K., & Alshibani, A. 2021. Multi-criteria decisionmaking framework for selecting sustainable private partners for housing projects. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 27(1), 112–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/ jfmpc-07-2020-0046
  4. Ajayi, B. O., & Chinda, T. 2022. Impact of construction delaycontrolling parameters on project schedule: DEMATELSystem dynamics modeling approach. Frontiers in Built Environment, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2022.799314
  5. Arslan, H. M. 2017. Current classification of multi criteria decision analysis methods and public sector implementations. In M. Aydin, N. Şirin Pinarcioğlu, & Ö. Uğurlu (Eds.), Current Debates in Public Finance Public Administration and Environmental Studies (pp. 241–261).
  6. IJOPEC Publication Limited. Banihashemi, S. A., & Khalilzadeh, M. 2021. Evaluating efficiency in construction projects with the TOPSIS model and NDEA method considering environmental effects and undesirable data. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, 46(2), 1589–1605.
  7. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40996-021-00669-w Bayhan, H. G., Demirkesen, S., Zhang, C., & Tezel, A. 2022. A lean construction and BIM interaction model for the construction industry. Production Planning & Control, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.2019342
  8. Biluca, J., de Aguiar, C. R., & Trojan, F. 2020. Sorting of suitable areas for disposal of construction and demolition waste using GIS and ELECTRE TRI. Waste Management, 114, 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.007
  9. Bonyani, A., & Alimohammadlou, M. 2018. A new approach for evaluating international EPC contractors in Iran’s energy sector. International Journal of Construction Management, 20(7), 775–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1484858
  10. Božanić, D., Tešić, D., & Kočić, J. 2019. Multi-criteria FUCOM – Fuzzy MABAC model for the selection of location for construction of single-span bailey bridge. Decision-making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(1), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1901132b
  11. Das, R., & Nakano, M. 2021. A multi-criteria decision-making model using socio-technical attributes for transportation bridge maintenance prioritisation. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(4), 579–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1899560
  12. Dehdasht, G., Ferwati, M. S., Zin, R. M., & Abidin, N. Z. 2020. A hybrid approach using entropy and TOPSIS to select key drivers for a successful and sustainable lean construction implementation. PLOS ONE, 15(2), e0228746. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228746
  13. Demirkesen, S., & Bayhan, H. G. 2020. A lean implementation success model for the construction industry. Engineering Management Journal, 32(3), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10429247.2020.1764834
  14. dos Santos, C. F., Piechnicki, F., de Freitas Rocha Loures, E., & Santos, E. A. P. 2017. Mapping the conceptual relationship among data analysis, knowledge generation and decisionmaking in ındustrial processes. Procedia Manufacturing, 11, 1751–1758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.305
  15. Erasmus University Rotterdam. 2023. Search methods & techniques: Search methods. LibGuides at Erasmus University Rotterdam; Erasmus University Library. https://libguides.eur.nl/informationskillssearchmethods/methods
  16. Erdogan, S. A., Šaparauskas, J., & Turskis, Z. 2019. A multicriteria decision-making model to choose the best option for sustainable construction management. Sustainability, 11(8), 2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082239
  17. Erol, H., Dikmen, I., Atasoy, G., & Birgonul, M. T. 2022. An analytic network process model for risk quantification of mega construction projects. Expert Systems with Applications, 191, 116215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116215
  18. Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. 2018. Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529–1557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018- 0261-5
  19. Gharouni Jafari, K., & Noorzai, E. 2021. Selecting the most appropriate project manager to improve the performance of the occupational groups in road construction projects in warm regions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(10). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943- 7862.0002151
  20. Gunduz, M., & Almuajebh, M. 2020. Critical success factors for sustainable construction project management. Sustainability, 12(5), 1990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051990
  21. Gunduz, M., & Khader, B. K. 2020. Construction project safety performance management using analytic network process (ANP) as a multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) tool. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience,2020, 1–11. https:// doi.org/10.1155/2020/2610306
  22. Haruna, A., Shafiq, N., & Montasir, O. A. 2021. Building information modelling application for developing sustainable building (Multi criteria decision-making approach). Ain Shams Engineering Journal,12(1), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. asej.2020.06.006
  23. Heydari Dehooei, J., Hosseini Dehshiri, S. 2021. Selecting project manager based on competency model using SWARA and WASPAS combined methods: Case of Pishgaman Kavir Yazd Cycas Park Project. Management Research in Iran, 22(4), 47-72.
  24. Ighravwe, D. E., & Oke, S. A. 2019. A multi-criteria decisionmaking framework for selecting a suitable maintenance strategy for public buildings using sustainability criteria. Journal of Building Engineering, 24, 100753. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100753
  25. Iqbal, M., Ma, J., Ahmad, N., Ullah, Z., & Ahmed, R. I. 2021. Uptake and adoption of sustainable energy technologies: Prioritizing strategies to overcome barriers in the construction industry by using an integrated AHP‐TOPSIS approach. Advanced Sustainable Systems, 5(7), 2100026. https://doi. org/10.1002/adsu.202100026
  26. Jato-Espino, D., Castillo-Lopez, E., Rodriguez-Hernandez, J., & Canteras-Jordana, J. C. 2014. A review of application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in construction. Automation in Construction, 45, 151–162. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.05.013
  27. Kajanus, M., Leskinen, P., Kurttila, M., & Kangas, J. 2012. Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management. Forest Policy and Economics, 20, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. forpol.2012.03.005
  28. Kalan, D., & Ozbek, M. E. 2020. Development of a construction project bidding decision-making tool. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 25(1). https://doi. org/10.1061/(asce)sc.1943-5576.0000457
  29. Kar, S., & Jha, K. N. 2020. Assessing criticality of construction materials for prioritizing their procurement using ANPTOPSIS. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(10), 1852–1862. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020. 1742637
  30. Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., Antucheviciene, J., & Chatterjee, P. 2018. Multiple-Criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques for business processes information management. Information, 10(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10010004
  31. Khoshand, A., Khanlari, K., Abbasianjahromi, H., & Zoghi, M. 2020. Construction and demolition waste management: Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process approach. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 38(7), 773–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x20910468
  32. Kiani, M., Bagheri, M., Ebrahimi, A., & Alimohammadlou, M. 2019. A model for prioritizing outsourceable activities in universities through an integrated fuzzy-MCDM method. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(5), 784– 800. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1645264
  33. Kim, D., Oh, W., Yun, J., Youn, J., Do, S., & Lee, D. 2021. Development of key performance indicators for measuring the management performance of small construction firms in Korea. Sustainability, 13(11), 6166. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13116166
  34. Köksalan, M. M., Wallenius, J., & Zionts, S. 2011. Multiple criteria decision-making: From early history to the 21st century. World Scientific.
  35. Li, Y., Lin, J., Cui, Z., Wang, C., & Li, G. 2019. Workforce productivity evaluation of the US construction industry from 2006 to 2016. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28(1), 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-07- 2019-0366
  36. Liang, R., & Chong, H.-Y. 2019. A hybrid group decision model for green supplier selection: A case study of megaprojects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(8), 1712–1734. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-10-2018-0462
  37. Liu, H., Long, H., & Li, X. 2020. Identification of critical factors in construction and demolition waste recycling by the greyDEMATEL approach: A Chinese perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(8), 8507–8525. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11356-019-07498-5
  38. Ma, D., Chen, Y., Fu, Y., & Meng, C. 2022. Influencing factors of outsourcing in construction projects: A holistic perspective. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 15(2), 396–422. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-04-2021-0107
  39. Mojumder, A., & Singh, A. 2021. An exploratory study of the adaptation of green supply chain management in construction industry: The case of Indian Construction Companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, 126400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2021.126400
  40. Negash, Y. T., Hassan, A. M., Tseng, M.-L., Wu, K.-J., & Ali, M. H. 2021. Sustainable construction and demolition waste management in Somaliland: Regulatory barriers lead to technical and environmental barriers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 297, 126717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126717
  41. Odu, G. O. (2019). Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making technique. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 23(8), 1449. https://doi. org/10.4314/jasem.v23i8.7
  42. Oz, B., Anbarci, M., & Manisali, E. 2017. A conflict resolution model identifying cause and effect relations by using Fuzzy Expert System. Gazi Univ. J. Sci,4(4), 67-83
  43. Oz, B., Anbarci, M., & Manisali, E. 2019. Classification of conflicts encountered in the public construction projects.AJIT-e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 10(36), 95– 107. https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2019.1.005.x
  44. Prasad, S. V. S. R. 2019. The influence of a goal programming approach for safety management practices on the performance of a selected Indian construction organization. Production Engineering Archives, 24(24), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.30657/ pea.2019.24.10
  45. Qi, H., Zhou, Z., Li, N., & Zhang, C. 2022. Construction safety performance evaluation based on data envelopment analysis (DEA) from a hybrid perspective of cross-sectional and longitudinal. Safety Science, 146, 105532. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105532
  46. Qi, X.-W., Zhang, J.-L., & Liang, C.-Y. 2018. Multiple attributes group decision-making under interval-valued dual hesitant fuzzy unbalanced linguistic environment with prioritized attributes and unknown decision-makers’ weights. Information, 9(6), 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9060145
  47. Roghabadi, M. A., & Moselhi, O. 2020. A fuzzy-based decision support model for risk maturity evaluation of construction organizations. Algorithms, 13(5), 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/ a13050115
  48. Shalaby, A., & Hassanein, A. 2019. A decision support system (DSS) for facilitating the scenario selection process of the renegotiation of PPP contracts. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(6), 1004–1023. https://doi. org/10.1108/ecam-01-2018-0010
  49. Sing, M., Chan, J., Liu, H., & Ngai, N. N. H. 2021. Developing an analytic hierarchy process-based decision model for modular construction in urban areas. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1108/jedt-05-2021-0242
  50. Stojić, G., Stević, Ž., Antuchevičienė, J., Pamučar, D., & Vasiljević, M. 2018. A novel rough WASPAS approach for supplier selection in a company manufacturing PVC carpentry products. Information, 9(5), 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/ info9050121
  51. Su, L., Wang, T., Li, H., Chao, Y., & Wang, L. 2019. Multicriteria decision-making for identification of unbalanced bidding. Journal of Civil Engineering And Management, 26(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2019.11568
  52. Sun, H., Mao, W., Dang, Y., & Xu, Y. 2022. Optimum path for overcoming barriers of green construction supply chain management: A grey possibility DEMATEL-NK approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 164, 107833. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107833
  53. Tabatabaee, S., Mahdiyar, A., Durdyev, S., Mohandes, S. R., & Ismail, S. 2019.An assessment model of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks of green roof installation: A multi criteria decision-making approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 238, 117956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117956
  54. Tamošaitienė, J., Sarvari, H., Cristofaro, M., & Chan, D. W. M. 2021. Identifying and prioritizing the selection criteria of appropriate repair and maintenance methods for commercial buildings. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 25(5), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.3846/ ijspm.2021.15225
  55. Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. 2015. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
  56. Vafaei, N., Ribeiro, R. A., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. 2016. Normalization techniques for multi-criteria decision-making: Analytical hierarchy process case study. In Technological Innovation for Cyber-Physical Systems (pp. 261–269). Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-31165-4_26
  57. Wu, X., & Xu, F. 2021. Detection model for unbalanced bidding in railway construction projects: Considering the risk of quantity variation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(7). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002058
  58. Xiahou, X., Wu, Y., Duan, T., Lin, P., Li, F., Qu, X., Liu, L., Li, Q., & Liu, J. 2022. Analyzing critical factors for the smart construction site development: A DEMATEL-ISM based approach. Buildings, 12(2), 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ buildings12020116
  59. Yuan, F., Tang, M., & Hong, J. 2020. Efficiency estimation and reduction potential of the Chinese construction industry via SE-DEA and artificial neural network. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(7), 1533–1552. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-10-2019-0564
  60. Zavadskas, E. K., Govindan, K., Antucheviciene, J., & Turskis, Z. 2016. Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: A review of applications for sustainability issues. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29(1), 857–887. https://doi. org/10.1080/1331677x.2016.1237302
  61. Zavadskas, E. K., Vilutienė, T., Turskis, Z., & Šaparauskas, J. 2014. Multi-criteria analysis of Projects’ performance in construction. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 14(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2013.07.006
  62. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Tamosaitiene, J. 2010. Multicriteria decision-making of management effectiveness of construction enterprises based on the SWOT and MCDM. The 6th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management 2010”. Selected Papers. http://dx.doi. org/10.3846/bm.2010.152
  63. Zhu, F., Hu, H., Xu, F., & Tang, N. 2021. Predicting the impact of country-related risks on cost overrun for overseas infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(2). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943- 7862.0001959
  64. Das, R., & Nakano, M. 2021. A multi-criteria decision-making model using socio-technical attributes for transportation bridge maintenance prioritisation. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(4), 579–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1899560