Uncertainty in best value decision making

Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction - 2007
StevePhillips1, JimMartin2, AndyDainty3, AndrewPrice3
1Asset Management Surveyors Ltd, 15 Malmesbury Road, London, UK
2Martin Associates, 6‐8 Gunnery Terrace, The Royal Arsenal, London, UK
3Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK

Tóm tắt

The sheer volume of decisions taken within the public sector procurement process prevents perfect and complete information being obtained and applied to every best value tender analysis that is carried out. As such, uncertainty must be accepted as a feature of the best value decision‐making process. This paper reports research which is developing a methodology for utilising the uncertainty component in best value tender analysis in order to create a more transparent decision making process. The main output of the research is the production of a robust support tool which aids the multi objective decision making process within the public sector of the UK construction industry by provoking rational discussion with respect to; the industry’s key performance indicators (KPIs), the client’s attitude to risk and provides a transparent audit trail of the decisions taken. The underlying rationale for the support tool is based on a combination of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Multi‐Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) and Whole Life Costing (WLC). The paper demonstrates the practical utility of the methodology of the tool through a tender decision process.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Audit Commission, 2005, Audit Commission annual report and accounts

Austin S, 2005, VALID: An approach to value deliv-ery that integrates stakeholder judgement into the design process. Case Study One. CICE Loughborough UK

Bana C.A., 2001, A fundamen tal criticism to Saaty's use of the eigenvalue procedure to derive priorities. Working Paper LSEOR

Bedford T, 2003, UK.

10.1111/1467-9302.00217

Constructing Excellence, 2006, A Complete Hous ing KPI Toolkit. Construction Best Practice

Department of the Environment Transport and Re gions, 1997, Replacing CCT with a Duty of Best Value: Next Steps. HMSO London

DTLR, 2000, Multi Criteria Analysis Manual

Egan J, 1998, Report of the Construction Task Force on the Scope for Improving the Quality and Efficiency of UK Construction. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

Fellows R, 2003, Research Methods for Construction, 2

Flanagan R, 1996, Risk Management and Construction

Haas R, 2003, Aus tria.

10.1016/S0360-1323(97)00016-4

Hirshleifer J, 2002, The Analytics of Uncertainty and Information

Keeney R, 1992, Value Focused Thinking

Keeney R, 1976, Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Preferences and Value Trade Offs

Kelly J, 2003, RICS Foundation Research Paper Series, 4, 1

Kelly J, Morledge R and Wilkinson S (2002) Best Value in Construction

Latham Sir M, 1994, Joint Government/Industry review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the U.K Con struction Industry. Final report, HMSO. Lon don.

Office, 2003, Value for Money Measurement: OGC Business Guid ance. OGC London UK

Office, 2004, Best Prac tice: Value for Money Evaluation in Complex Procurements. OGC London UK

10.1080/01446198900000023

Phillips S, Change Conference Proceedings, 178

Procurement Strategies, 1999, No. 5

Saaty TL, 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process

Savage L.J., 1972, The Foundation of Statistics, 2

Shillito, ML and DeMarle DJ (1992) Value: Its Meas urement, Design and Management

10.4324/9780203398289

Von Neumann J, 1990, Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour, 6

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction

Thông tin tác giả