Value–based Group Decision on Support Bridge Selection

Authors: Christiono Utomo, Arazi Idrus

Abstract:

Value-based group decision is very complicated since many parties involved. There are different concern caused by differing preferences, experiences, and background. Therefore, a support system is required to enable each stakeholder to evaluate and rank the solution alternatives before engaging into negotiation with the other stakeholders. The support system is based on combination between value-based analysis, multi criteria group decision making based on satisfying options, and negotiation process based on coalition formation. This paper presents the group decision and negotiation on the selection of suitable material for a support bridge structure involving three decision makers, who are an estate manager, a project manager, and an engineer. There are three alternative solutions for the material of the support bridge structure, which are (a1) steel structure, (a2) reinforced concrete structure and (a3) wooden structure.

Keywords: Value-based, group decision, negotiation support, construction.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1086025

References:

[1] J. Kelly and S. Male, Value Management in Design and Construction: The Economic Management of Projects, London: Spon Press, 1993.
[2] G. Lin and Q. Shen, "Measuring the performance of value management studies in construction: critical review," Journal of Management in Engineering vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 2-9, 2007.
[3] S. Kraus, Strategic Negotiation in Multi-agent Environment, MA: MIT Press, 2001.
[4] T. Wanyama, and B.H. Far, "A protocol for multi-agent negotiation in a group-choice decision-making," Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 30, pp.1173-1195, 2007.
[5] W.C. Stirling, Satisfying Games and Decision Making with Applications to Engineering and Computer Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[6] L. D. Miles, Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering, 3rded. NY: Eleanor Miles Walker, 1989.
[7] K. Yang, Voice of Customer, Capture and Analysis. NY: McGraw Hill Proffesional, 2007.
[8] Kitamura, Y. and Mizoguchi, R, "An ontology of functional concept of artefacts". AI-TR, no.1, 1999.
[9] J.J. Kaufman, Value Management: Creating Competitive Advantage. Kent: Financial World Publishing, 2001.
[10] R. Woodhead, "Concepts of value in value management: the relationship between function and value". Value World summer, SAVE International, 2007.
[11] C.W. Bytheway, FAST Creativity and Innovation: Rapidly Improving Processes, Product Development and Solving Complex Problems. Florida: J.Ross Publishing, 2007.
[12] J.J. Kaufman and R. Woodhead, Stimulating Innovation in Products and Services with Function Analysis Mapping, New Jersey: John Wiley&Sons. 2006.
[13] S.J. Kirk and A. Dell-Isola, Life Cycle Costing for Design Professionals, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
[14] P. Barringer, "A life cycle cost summary". The International conference of Maintenance Societies. Maintenance Engineering Society of Australia, Perth, 20-23 May, 2003.
[15] J.W. Bull, Life Cycle Cost for Construction, London: Blackie Academic & Professional, 1993.
[16] H. Liu, V. Gopalkrishnan, K.T.N Quynh, W-K. Ng "Regression models for estimating product life cycle cost". Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. Springer Science+Business Media. DOI 10.1007/s10845-008-0114-4, 2008.
[17] C. Utomo, A. Idrus, M. Napiah and M.F. Khamidi, "Agreement options and coalition formation on value-based decision". Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Multi criteria Decision-Making. IEEE Society Nashville, TN, March 30 - April 2, 2009, pp.118-125.
[18] ASTM, ASTM Standards on Building Economics, 5th edition. ASTM International, 2004.
[19] T.L. Saaty, "Decision making - the analytical hierarchy process and network process (AHP/ANP)", Journal of System Science and System Engineering, vol.13, no.1, pp.1-34, 2004.