Search results

This study focused on exploring the performance factors (PFs) that impact Infrastructure Sanitation Projects (ISSPs) in the construction sector. The aim was twofold: firstly, to identify these crucial PFs and secondly, to develop a robust performance model capable of effectively measuring and assessing the intricate interdependencies and correlations within ISSPs. By achieving these objectives, the study aimed to provide valuable insights into and tools for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of sanitation projects in the construction industry.

To achieve the study's aim, the methodology for identifying the PFs for ISSPs involved several steps: extensive literature review, interviews with Egyptian industry experts, a questionnaire survey targeting industry practitioners and an analysis using the Relative Importance Index (RII), Pareto principle and analytic network process (ANP). The RII ranked factor importance,  and Pareto identified the top 20% for ANP, which determined connections and interdependencies among these factors.

The literature review identified 36 PFs, and an additional 13 were uncovered during interviews. The highest-ranked PF is PF5, while PF19 is the lowest-ranked. Pareto principle selected 11 PFs, representing the top 20% of factors. The ANP model produced an application for measuring ISSP effectiveness, validated through two case studies. Application results were 92.25% and 91.48%, compared to actual results of 95.77% and 97.37%, indicating its effectiveness and accuracy, respectively.

This study addresses a significant knowledge gap by identifying the critical PFs that influence ISSPs within the construction industry. Subsequently, it constructs a novel performance model, resulting in the development of a practical computer application aimed at measuring and evaluating the performance of these projects.

The main aim of this paper is to establish a reasonable and scientific evaluation index system to assess the high quality and full employment (HQaFE).

This paper uses a novel Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) multi-criteria framework to evaluate the quality and quantity of employment, wherein the integrated weights of attributes are determined by the combined the Criteria Importance Through Inter-criteria Correlation (CRITIC) and entropy approaches.

Firstly, the gap in the Yangtze River Delta in employment quality is narrowing year by year; secondly, employment skills as well as employment supply and demand are the primary indicators that determine the HQaFE; finally, the evaluation scores are clearly hierarchical, in the order of Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Anhui.

A scientific and reasonable evaluation index system is constructed. A novel CRITIC-entropy-TOPSIS evaluation is proposed to make the results more objective. Some policy recommendations that can promote the achievement of HQaFE are proposed.

This paper aims to define a hierarchical and multi-criteria framework based on pillars of the Modernization of Higher Education to evaluate European Accounting Doctoral Programmes (EADE-Model).

The authors applied a quali-quantitative methodology based on the analytic hierarchy process and the survey approach. The authors conducted an extensive literature and regulation review to identify the dimensions affecting the quality of Doctoral Programmes, choosing accounting as the relevant and pivotal field. The authors also used the survey to select the most critical quality dimensions and derive their weight to build EADE Model. The validity of the proposed model has been tested through the application to the Italian scenario.

The findings provide a critical extension of accounting ranking studies constructing a multi-criteria, hierarchical and updated evaluation model recognizing the role of doctoral training in the knowledge-based society. The results shed new light on weak areas apt to be improved and propose potential amendments to enhance the quality standard of ADE.

Theoretical and practical implications of this paper are directed to academics, policymakers and PhD programmes administrators.

The research is original in drafting a hierarchical multi-criteria framework for evaluating ADE in the Higher Education System. This model may be extended to other fields.

This section describes sustainable development (SD) in relation to infrastructure projects and explains how to evaluate SD. SD is assessed as context-dependent, considering the project’s economic, social, and ecological context. Sustainable road infrastructure projects (SRIP) should encapsulate the complete life cycle from idea to development, functionality, and maintenance. SD should be considered as part of the evaluation process prior to project execution, but it can also serve other functions. Sustainability evaluation must start with project appraisal or evaluation and the earliest stages of project decision-making. Sustainable infrastructure projects (SIPs) are evaluated using a variety of techniques and models, such as cost-benefit analysis (CBA), multi-criteria techniques, ecological and societal impact assessments, ranking techniques, models, and evaluation guidelines. Established SD structures and modelling techniques for infrastructure projects are presented from an SD perspective, with the primary objective of investigating how they operate and determining whether existing models provide an effective method for applying the SD idea into infrastructure development. CBA is a widely used strategy for evaluating alternatives to maximize sociocultural well-being. It is based on the likelihood of costing customer advantages and negative impacts and has been discussed in scholarly articles. The multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach is an acceptable methodology for addressing complex matters involving high risk, conflicting objectives, different types of information and data, different concerns and points of view, and the representation of complex and evolving biological, ecological, and financial frameworks. It combines many methodologies and offers various advantages over more conventional ways of decision-making and plan development. It should be used to increase community participation and empower partner organizations and should apply several criteria at the same time, including those that are difficult to adjust and quantify. The key difficulty with this strategy is the usage of weightings, which has been sharply criticized by several researchers. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an adaptive tool used to assess the ecological effects of a particular action, task, or procedure. It is applied globally to decision-making in numerous fields, including transportation, energy, and water, and has become a typical tool for determining the ecological performance of infrastructure projects. However, it has a few flaws and could benefit from improvements to assess SD with greater precision. It is a fragmented mechanism for assessing the three components of SD, but its incorporation into other evaluation approaches is desirable. The evaluation of societal implications has been conducted using a variety of methods and techniques, but there is currently no standard method for assessing the communal and appropriation consequences of infrastructure initiatives. Social life-cycle assessments (SLCAs) are advancing, but consensus remains a challenge. The Evaluation Partnership and the Centre for European Policy Studies identified several obstacles and challenges to implementing an outstanding societal assessment, such as the term ‘societal impacts’ being potentially overbroad and not adequately defined, and the lack of a suitable method for quantitatively evaluating sociological effects. Additionally, a large section of societal assessments is biased and frequently inconsequential. The chapter discussed the theoretical and methodological stances on sustainable road infrastructure, using current SID concepts and evaluation techniques thoroughly.

Hospital structures serve to protect and improve public health; however, they are recognized as a major source of environmental degradation. Thus, an effective performance evaluation framework is required to improve hospital sustainability. In this context, this study presents a holistic methodology that integrates the sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) with fuzzy Delphi method and fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approaches for evaluating the sustainability performance of hospitals.

Initially, a comprehensive list of relevant sustainability evaluation criteria was considered based on six SBSC-based dimensions, in line with triple-bottom-line sustainability dimensions, and derived from the literature review and experts’ opinions. Then, the weights of perspectives and their respective criteria are computed and ranked utilizing the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Subsequently, the hospitals’ sustainable performance values are ranked based on these criteria using the Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution.

A numerical application was conducted in six public hospitals to exhibit the proposed model’s applicability. The results of this study revealed that “Patient satisfaction,” “Efficiency,” “Effectiveness,” “Access to care” and “Waste production,” respectively, are the five most important criteria of sustainable performance.

The new model will provide decision-makers with management tools that may help them identify the relevant factors for upgrading the level of sustainability in their hospitals and thus improve public health and community well-being.

This is the first study that proposes a new hybrid decision-making methodology for evaluating and comparing hospitals’ sustainability performance under a fuzzy environment.

With the continuous development of the wind power industry, wind power plant (WPP) has become the focus of resource development within the industry. Site selection, as the initial stage of WPP development, is directly related to the feasibility of construction and the future revenue of WPP. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to study the siting of WPP and establish a framework for siting decision-making.

Firstly, a site selection evaluation index system is constructed from four aspects of economy, geography, environment and society using the literature review method and the Delphi method, and the weights of each index are comprehensively determined by combining the Decision-making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) and the entropy weight method (EW). Then, prospect theory and the multi-criteria compromise solution ranking method (VIKOR) are introduced to rank the potential options and determine the best site.

China is used as a case study, and the robustness and reliability of the methodology are demonstrated through sensitivity analysis, comparative analysis and ablation experiment analysis. This paper aims to provide a useful reference for WPP siting research.

In this paper, DEMATEL and EW are used to determine the weights of indicators, which overcome the disadvantage of single assignment. Prospect theory and VIKOR are combined to construct a decision model, which also considers the attitude of the decision-maker and the compromise solution of the decision result. For the first time, this framework is applied to WPP siting research.

This chapter investigates the potential of integrating multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques with decision support systems of digital supply chain management (DSCM) to achieve optimal outcomes. Digital supply chain (DSC) employs digital technologies (DTs) such as artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), and big data analytics to provide extensive datasets and valuable insights pertaining to supply chain operations. MCDM techniques employ these realizations to facilitate informed decision-making through the assessment of multiple competing criteria. Usually MCDM approaches are used in the academic research with comparatively lesser application in industry. We argue that MCDM methodologies can play an instrumental role in DSCM, specifically in the areas of supplier selection, demand forecasting, and inventory management. Nevertheless, the integration of MCDM like AHP, ANP, DEMATEL, etc., with decision support systems presents several challenges, including concerns regarding the quality of data and the intricate task of assigning weights to various factors.

Prefabricated products are continually entering the building construction market; yet, the decision to use prefabricated products in a construction project is based mostly on personal preferences and the evaluation of direct costs. Researchers and practitioners have debated appropriate measurement systems for evaluating the impacts of prefabricated products and for comparing them with conventional on-site construction practices. The more advanced, cost–benefit approach to evaluating prefabricated products often inspires controversy because it may generate inaccurate results when converting non-monetary effects into costs. As prefabrication may affect multiple organisations and product subsystems, the method used to decide on production methods should consider multiple direct and indirect impacts, including nonmonetary ones. Thus, this study aims to develop a multi-criteria method to evaluate both the monetary and non-monetary impacts of prefabrication solutions to facilitate decision-making on whether to use prefabricated products.

Drawing upon a literature review, this research suggests a multi-criteria method that combines the choosing-by-advantage approach with a cost–benefit analysis. The method was presented for validation in focus group discussions and tested in a case involving a prefabricated bathroom.

The analysis indicates that the method helps a project’s stakeholders communicate about the relative merits of prefabrication and conventional construction while facilitating the final decision of whether to use prefabrication.

This research contributes a method of evaluating the monetary and non-monetary impacts of prefabricated products. The research underlines the need to evaluate the diverse benefits and sacrifices that stakeholder face when considering production methods in construction.

Many buildings fail to meet user expectations, causing a performance gap. Pre-occupancy evaluation (PrOE) is believed to have the potential to close the gap. It enables designers to obtain end-user feedback in the design phase and improve the design for better performance. However, PrOE implementation faces challenges due to still maturing knowledgebase. This study aims to understand the state-of-the-art knowledge of PrOE, thereby identifying future research needs to advance the domain.

A systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) framework was conducted. A thorough search in five databases and Google Scholar retrieved 90 articles, with 30 selected for systematic review after eliminating duplicates and irrelevant articles. Bibliometric analyses were performed using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny on the article metadata, and thematic analyses were conducted on their contents.

PrOE is a vehicle for engaging building end-users in the design phase to address the credibility gap caused by the discrepancies between the expected and actual performance of buildings. PrOE has gained limited applications in healthcare, residential, office and educational building design for two broad purposes: design management and marketing. Using virtual reality technologies for PrOE has demonstrated significant benefits. Yet, the PrOE domain needs to mature in multiple perspectives to serve its intended purpose effectively.

This study identifies four knowledge gaps for future research to advance the PrOE domain: (1) developing a holistic PrOE framework, integrating comprehensive performance evaluation criteria, useable at different stages of the design phase and multi-criteria decision algorithms, (2) developing a mixed reality tool, embodying the holistic PrOE framework, (3) formulating a PrOE framework for adaptive reuse of buildings and (4) managing uncertainties in user requirements during the lifecycle in PrOE decisions.

The purpose of this research is to present an integrated methodological framework to aid in performance stewardship of management institutions according to their strategies based on a holistic evaluation encompassing social, economic and environmental dimensions.

A Mamdani fuzzy inference system (FIS) approach was adopted to design the quantitative models with respect to balanced scorecard (BSC) perspectives to demonstrate dynamic capability. Individual models were developed for each perspective of BSC using Mamdani FIS. Data was collected from subject matter experts in management education.

The proposed methodology is able to successfully compute the scores for each perspective. Effective placement, teaching learning process, faculty development and systematic feedback from the stakeholders were found to be the key drivers for revenue generation. The model is validated as the results were well accepted by the head of the institution after implementation.

The model resulting from this study will assist the institution to cyclically assess its performance, thus enabling continuous improvement. The strategy map provides the causality of the objectives across the four perspectives to aid the practitioners to better strategize. Also this study contributes to the literature of BSC as well to the applications of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques.

Mamdani FIS integrated BSC model is a significant contribution to the academia of management education to quantitatively compute the performance of institutions. This quantified model reduces the ambiguity for practitioners to decide the performance levels for each metric and the priorities of metrics.