Project Delivery System Selection using the AHP Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method

Authors

  • Buroog Basheer Mahmood Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Wasit University, Wasit, Iraq
  • Alaa Kharbat Shadhar Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Wasit University, Wasit, Iraq
  • Ihsan Ali Husain Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Wasit University, Wasit, Iraq
  • Ahmed Mohammed Raoof Mahjoob Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
Volume: 15 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 20118-20122 | February 2025 | https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.9434

Abstract

This study aims to select the most suitable project delivery method for the implementation of construction projects in Iraq. The descriptive analytical approach was used to determine the importance of the criteria considered in this study, namely cost, project duration, and quality, according to owners, contractors, and consultants. A field study was used utilizing questionnaire survey and interviews to determine the degree of importance of these criteria. Then, data regarding 28 projects for the period from 2022 to 2024 were was collected to measure the performance of these criteria. Univariate data analyses were performed to assess the performance of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) along with the deriving priority scales based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) theory. The results of the AHP indicate that the IPD system ranked first with a preference rate of 34.5%.

Keywords:

integrated project delivery system, AHP, MCDM

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

A. Engebo, O. Laedre, B. Young, P. F. Larssen, J. Lohne, and O. J. Klakegg, "Collaborative project delivery methods: a scoping review," Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 278–303, Mar. 2020.

J. B. Miller, M. J. Garvin, C. W. Ibbs, and S. E. Mahoney, "Toward a New Paradigm: Simultaneous Use of Multiple Project Delivery Methods," Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 58–67, May 2000.

A. K. Shadhar, A. M. R. Mahjoob, and B. B. Mahmood, "Comparing Between Traditional and Integrated Project Delivery Systems Attributes for Optimizing Project Performanc." 2022.

Y. Q. Chen, J. Y. Liu, B. Li, and B. Lin, "Project delivery system selection of construction projects in China," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 5456–5462, May 2011.

E. Bingham, G. E. Gibson, and M. E. Asmar, "Measuring User Perceptions of Popular Transportation Project Delivery Methods Using Least Significant Difference Intervals and Multiple Range Tests," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 144, no. 6, Jun. 2018, Art. no. 04018033.

S.-W. Whang, K. S. Park, and S. Kim, "Critical success factors for implementing integrated construction project delivery," Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 2432–2446, Jul. 2019.

A. M. Raouf and S. G. Al-Ghamdi, "Effectiveness of Project Delivery Systems in Executing Green Buildings," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 145, no. 10, Oct. 2019, Art. no. 03119005.

H. Moon, M. Park, Y. Ahn, and N. Kwon, "Moderating Effect of Project Type on the Relationship between Project Delivery Systems and Cost Performance," Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 39, no. 1, Jan. 2023, Art. no. 04022066.

J. Laurent and R. M. Leicht, "Practices for Designing Cross-Functional Teams for Integrated Project Delivery," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 145, no. 3, Mar. 2019, Art. no. 05019001.

W. Lu, Y. Hua, and S. Zhang, "Logistic regression analysis for factors influencing cost performance of design-bid-build and design-build projects," Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 118–132, Jan. 2017.

M.-R. Pooyan, A. Al-Sakkaf, E. M. Abdelkader, T. Zayed, and G. Gopakumar, "An Integrated Framework for Selecting the Optimum Project Delivery System in Post-conflict Construction Projects," International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1359–1384, Aug. 2023.

M. Khanzadi, F. Nasirzadeh, S. M. H. Hassani, and N. Nejad Mohtashemi, "An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making approach for project delivery system selection," Scientia Iranica, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 802–814, Jun. 2016.

J.-W. Zhu, L.-N. Zhou, L. Li, and W. Ali, "Decision Simulation of Construction Project Delivery System under the Sustainable Construction Project Management," Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 6, Jan. 2020, Art. no. 2202.

R. Maya, B. Hassan, and A. Hassan, "Develop an artificial neural network (ANN) model to predict construction projects performance in Syria," Journal of King Saud University - Engineering Sciences, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 366–371, Sep. 2023.

A. Kharbat Shadhar, B. Basheer Mahmood, and M. Hashim Al Quraishi, "A Novel Methodology for Predicting Roadway Deterioration in Iraq," International Journal of Engineering, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 41–49, Jan. 2023.

N. N. Abbas and A. M. Burhan, "Investigating the Causes of Poor Cost Control in Iraqi Construction Projects," Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 8075–8079, Feb. 2022.

O. A. Al-Juboori, H. A. Rashid, and A. M. R. Mahjoob, "Investigating the Critical Success Factors for Water Supply Projects: Case of Iraq," Civil and Environmental Engineering, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 438–449, Dec. 2021.

T. L. Saaty, "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 85–91, Feb. 2003.

A. K. Shadhar and A. M. Raoof Mahjoob, "Pavement Maintenance Management Using Multi-objective Optimization: (Case Study: Wasit Governorate-Iraq)," International Journal of Engineering, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2155–2161, Nov. 2020.

Downloads

How to Cite

[1]
Mahmood, B.B., Shadhar, A.K., Husain, I.A. and Mahjoob, A.M.R. 2025. Project Delivery System Selection using the AHP Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research. 15, 1 (Feb. 2025), 20118–20122. DOI:https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.9434.

Metrics

Abstract Views: 38
PDF Downloads: 48

Metrics Information

Most read articles by the same author(s)