Utility Assessment Model for Wireless Technology in Construction

Authors: Y. Abdelrazig, A. Ghanem

Abstract:

Construction projects are information intensive in nature and involve many activities that are related to each other. Wireless technologies can be used to improve the accuracy and timeliness of data collected from construction sites and shares it with appropriate parties. Nonetheless, the construction industry tends to be conservative and shows hesitation to adopt new technologies. A main concern for owners, contractors or any person in charge on a job site is the cost of the technology in question. Wireless technologies are not cheap. There are a lot of expenses to be taken into consideration, and a study should be completed to make sure that the importance and savings resulting from the usage of this technology is worth the expenses. This research attempts to assess the effectiveness of using the appropriate wireless technologies based on criteria such as performance, reliability, and risk. The assessment is based on a utility function model that breaks down the selection issue into alternatives attribute. Then the attributes are assigned weights and single attributes are measured. Finally, single attribute are combined to develop one single aggregate utility index for each alternative.

Keywords: Analytic Hierarchy Process, Utility Function, Wireless Technologies, construction management.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1107609

References:

[1] De la Garza, J.M., Howitt, I., “Wireless Communication and Computing at the Construction Jobsite,” Journal of Automation in Construction, 7 (4), 1998, pp.327-3472.
[2] Nuntasunti, S., and Bernold, L., “Experimental Assessment of Wireless Construction Technologies”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132, (1009), 2006.
[3] Abduh, M., Skibniewski, M., “Utility Assessment of Electronic Networking Technologies for Design-Build Projects”. Journal of Automation in Construction, (12), 2002, pp. 167-183.
[4] Bernold, L., “Introduction to Wireless Construction. Why, What, and How?” Proceeding of Wireless in Construction Workshop, Rutgers University, 2006.
[5] McCullouch B., “Automating Field Data Collection on Construction Organizations.” Proceedings of the 5th Construction Congress: Managing Engineered Construction in Expanding Global Markets, Minneapolis, 1997, pp. 957– 963.
[6] Cheok, G., Lipman, R., Witzgall, C., Bernal, J., and Stone, W., “NIST Construction Automation Program Rep. No: 4 Non- Intrusive Scanning Technology for Construction Status Determination, Building and Fire Research Laboratory,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2000.
[7] Thorpe, T., and Mead, S., “Project-Specific Web Sites: Friend or Foe?” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(5), 2001, pp. 406–413.
[8] Akinci, B., Boukamp, F., Gordon, C., Huber, D., Lyons, C., and Park, K., “A Formalism for utilization of sensor systems and integrated project models for active construction quality control.” Journal of Automation in Construction, 15(2), 2005, pp. 124–138.
[9] Hastak, M., “Advanced Automation or Conventional Construction Process?” Journal of Automation in Construction, (7), 1998, pp. 299- 314.
[10] Georgy, M., Chang, L., Zhang, L., “Utility Function Model for Engineering Performance Assessment”. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, (131), 2005, pp. 558-568.
[11] Lin, C, Wang, W., Yu, W., “Improving AHP for Construction with Adaptive AHP Approach” Journal of Automation in Construction, (17), 2, 2008, pp. 180-187.
[12] Saaty, T.L., The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, and Resources Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
[13] El-Misalami, T., Walters, R., Jaselskis, E., “Construction IT Decision Making Using Multi-attribute Utility Theory for Use in a Laboratory Information Management System”. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, (12), 2006, pp. 1275-1283.