Quantifying the complexity of transportation projects using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

被引:91
|
作者
Nguyen, An T. [1 ]
Nguyen, Long D. [2 ]
Long Le-Hoai [3 ]
Dang, Chau N. [4 ]
机构
[1] Dong Nai ATA Engn Co Ltd Vietnam, Thanh Pho Bien Hao, Vietnam
[2] Florida Gulf Coast Univ, Whitaker Coll Engn, Ft Myers, FL 33965 USA
[3] Ho Chi Minh City Univ Technol, Fac Civil Engn, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
[4] Ho Chi Minh City Inst Appl Sci & Technol, Fac Civil Engn, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
关键词
Complexity; Project complexity; Transportation projects; Transportation construction; Fuzzy AHP; CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS; SYSTEMS; COST;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.007
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Transportation projects are increasingly complex. A systematic approach for measuring and evaluating complexity in transportation projects is imperative. Thirty six project complexity factors were identified specifically for transportation construction. Using factor analysis, this study deduced the six components of project complexity, namely sociopolitical, environmental, organizational, infrastructural, technological, and scope complexity. The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) method was employed to determine the weights of the components and parameters of project complexity. Sociopolitical complexity was the most defining component of complexity in transportation construction. A complexity level (CL) was proposed to measure the overall project complexity. The application of the proposed approach was demonstrated in a case study of three transportation projects performed by a heavy construction company. As a quantitative measure CL enables managers to better anticipate potential difficulties in complex transportation projects. As a result, scarce resources will be allocated efficiently among transportation projects in a company's portfolio. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and lPMA. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1364 / 1376
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among transportation companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process
    Kulak, O
    Kahraman, C
    INFORMATION SCIENCES, 2005, 170 (2-4) : 191 - 210
  • [32] Does Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Work Better Than Analytic Hierarchy Process?
    Chen, Xiaofeng
    Fang, Yanting
    Chai, Junyi
    Xu, Zeshui
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FUZZY SYSTEMS, 2022, 24 (02) : 909 - 924
  • [33] Does Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Work Better Than Analytic Hierarchy Process?
    Xiaofeng Chen
    Yanting Fang
    Junyi Chai
    Zeshui Xu
    International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 2022, 24 : 909 - 924
  • [34] Transportation projects selection process using fuzzy sets theory
    Avineri, E
    Prashker, J
    Ceder, A
    FUZZY SETS AND SYSTEMS, 2000, 116 (01) : 35 - 47
  • [35] Suitability mapping of agroforestry in Shimla district, Himachal Pradesh, India, using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (Fuzzy AHP)
    D. R. Saakshi
    undefined Bhardwaj
    Agroforestry Systems, 2025, 99 (5)
  • [36] Analytic Hierarchy Process and Fuzzy Evaluation of Passengers' Satisfactory Degree for QoS of Railway Passenger Transportation
    Pan Deng
    Zhang Chuansheng
    2010 8TH WORLD CONGRESS ON INTELLIGENT CONTROL AND AUTOMATION (WCICA), 2010, : 5215 - 5220
  • [37] Analytic hierarchy process based on fuzzy simulation
    Ning, YF
    Tang, WS
    Zhang, YQ
    FUZZ-IEEE 2005: PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FUZZY SYSTEMS: BIGGEST LITTLE CONFERENCE IN THE WORLD, 2005, : 546 - 550
  • [38] Analytic Hierarchy Process based on fuzzy logic
    Mironova, Natah
    Hafizova, Kate
    2007 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE EXPERIENCE OF DESIGNING AND APPLICATION OF CAD SYSTEMS IN MICROELECTRONICS, 2007, : 186 - 187
  • [39] EXTENSIONS OF THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS IN FUZZY ENVIRONMENT
    XU, RN
    ZHAI, XY
    FUZZY SETS AND SYSTEMS, 1992, 52 (03) : 251 - 257
  • [40] Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach
    Paweł Karczmarek
    Witold Pedrycz
    Adam Kiersztyn
    Group Decision and Negotiation, 2021, 30 : 463 - 481