Impact of decision model structure on the selection of a telecommunications tower footing reinforcement alternative

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24425/ace.2021.137170

Abstract

In recent years, we have been able to observe a dynamic development of MCDA (multi-criteria decision analysis) methods, which have become widely used in various sectors, including construction. These methods are characterised by simplicity and one of their key advantages is their simple modelling of non-linear dependencies within decision problems and their analysis under the conditions of incomplete, uncertain and hard-to-measure information. The universality and simple use of these methods does not, however, free the decision-maker from the necessity to adopt the proper approach to modelling and analysing specific decision problems. To highlight the fact that it is the character of the problem that should determine the selection of the method of analysing it and not the other way around, the authors assessed the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) and the ANP (Analytic Network Process) method in terms of verifying the impact of the different decision model structures on analysis outcomes and analysed their sensitivity to input data changes. This analysis was based on the example of selecting a telecommunications tower footing reinforcement alternative. The findings confirmed the significant impact of decision model structure on the ranking of the analysed alternatives.

References

[1] V. Belton, T. J. Stewart, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Springer, Dordrecht, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4

[2] M. Dytczak, Wybrane metody rozwiązywania wielokryterialnych problemów decyzyjnych w budownictwie. Politechnika Opolska, Opole, 2010.

[3] M. Fedorczak-Cisak, A. Kowalska-Koczwara, K. Nering, F. Pachla, E. Radziszewska-Zielina, G. Śladowski, T. Tatara, B. Ziarko, Evaluation of the Criteria for Selecting Proposed Variants of Utility Functions in the Adaptation of Historic Regional Architecture. Sustainability. 11(4), 1094, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041094

[4] M. E. Gershon, Model choice in multiobjective decision-making in natural resource systems, University of Arizona, 1981.

[5] A. Kobryń, Wielokryterialne wspomaganie decyzji w gospodarowaniu przestrzenią. Difin, Warszawa, 2014.

[6] M. Książek, Analiza porównawcza wybranych metod wielokryterialnych oceny przedsięwzięć inwestycyjnych. Budownictwo i Inżynieria Środowiska. 2(4), 555–561, 2011.

[7] E. Radziszewska-Zielina, M. Gleń, The application of the Electre I method for the selection of the floor solution variant. Advances and Trends in Engineering Sciences and Technologies - Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Sciences and Technologies, ESaT 2015, CRC Press, pp. 359–365, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1201/b19249

[8] T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, Nowy Jork, 1980.

[9] T. L. Saaty, Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1996.

[10] A. Tecle, Choice of multicriterion decision making techniques for watershed management, University of Arizona, 1988.

[11] T. Trzaskalik, Wielokryterialne wspomaganie decyzji. Przegląd metod i zastosowań. Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska. 74, 239-263, 2014.

Downloads

Published

2021-06-30

How to Cite

Szewczyk, Bartłomiej, et al. “Impact of Decision Model Structure on the Selection of a Telecommunications Tower Footing Reinforcement Alternative”. Archives of Civil Engineering, vol. 67, no. 2, June 2021, pp. 309-21, doi:10.24425/ace.2021.137170.

Issue

Section

Articles

Similar Articles

<< < 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.