Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Selection of Project Managers in Construction Firms Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy
Topsis: A Case Study
Fatemeh Torfi1 and *Abbas Rashidi2
Abstract: Selecting a project manager is a major decision for every construction company. Traditionally, a project manager is selected by interviewing
applicants and evaluating their capabilities by considering the special requirements of the project. The interviews are usually conducted by senior managers,
and the selection of the best candidate depends on their opinions. Thus, the results may not be completely reliable. Moreover, conducting interviews for a
large group of candidates is time-consuming. Thus, there is a need for computational models that can be used to select the most suitable applicant, given
the project specifications and the applicants details. In this paper, a case study is performed in which a Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making (FMCDM)
model is used to select the best candidate for the post of project manager in a large construction firm. First, with the opinions of the senior managers, all the
criteria and sub-criteria required for the selection are gathered, and the criteria priorities are qualitatively specified. Then, the applicants are ranked using the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), approximate weights of the criteria, and fuzzy technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The
results of the case study are shown to be satisfactory.
Keywords: Construction Firms, Fuzzy TOPSIS, Criteria, AHP, Project Manager
INTRODUCTION
Project managers play a significant role in determining the
quality, cost, and duration of construction projects. The
project manager makes most of the major decisions. Thus,
selecting the most suitable applicant is important.
PhD Candidate, Department of Industrial Engineering,
Mazandaran University of Science and Technology, Babol, IRAN
2Lecturer, Islamic Azad University, Semnan Branch, IRAN
*Corresponding email: rashidi@gatech.edu
1
Step 2. The
comparison
matrix
D
gives
pairwise
comparisons of the elements of the hierarchy. The
aim is to set their priorities with respect to each of
the elements one level higher.
xm1 xm 2 xmn
The elements
(1)
rij
xij
n
x
i 1
ij
(2)
rn1 rn 2 rnn
I .I
max n
n 1
max ( D.R / R)
n
(3)
i 1
(5)
(4)
a x ,
a x
a1 x a2
and
measurement
d a , b
is
identical
to
the
Euclidean
Property 3.2.2. Let a,b,and
c , be three triangular
x a1
0
xa
1
a2 a1
a x
a3 x
a3 a2
is
a2 x a3
d a , b d a , c (Chen, 2000).
The basic operations on fuzzy triangular numbers are
as follows (Yang and Hung, 2007).
x a3
For multiplication:
Definition 3.2.2. Let a
a1 , a2 , a3 and b b1 , b2 , b3 be
d a, b
1
2
2
2
a1 b1 a2 b2 a3 b3
3
(7)
a b a1 b1 , a2 b2 , a3 b3
(8)
a b a1 b1 , a2 b2 , a3 b3
(9)
For addition:
Membership function
Rank
(0.00,0.10,0.25)
Low (L)
(0.15,0.30,0.45)
Medium (M)
(0.35,0.50,0.65)
High (H)
(0.55,0.70,0.85)
(0.75,0.90,1.00)
PRINCIPLES OF TOPSIS
TOPSIS is based on choosing the alternative with the
shortest distance from the positive-ideal solution and the
PENERBIT UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIAI75
j , j 1, 2,..., n are
where xij , i 1, 2,..., m; j 1, 2,..., n and w
FTOPSIS MODEL
C1 C2 C3 Cn
A1
A2
A3
Am
x11 x12
x
21 x22
x31 x32
xm1 xm2
x13 x1n
x23
x2n
x33
x3n
xm3
xmn
W w1 , w 2 ,..., w n
(10)
and
of the ith alternative, Ai, with respect to the jth criteria, and
w j represents the weight of the jth criteria, Cj. The
normalised fuzzy decision matrix is:
R rij
(12)
mn
~ ~
~
v m1 v n 2 vmn
(11)
(13)
x preserves
ij
the property
(14)
(15)
d i d vij , v j , i 1, 2,..., m
(16)
d i d vij , v j , i 1, 2,..., m
(17)
j 1
n
j 1
normalised
value V
is
CCi
d i d i
maximum CCi
or
rank
the
alternatives
Table 2. Criteria and Sub-Criteria Used for Project Manager Selection in Polband Construction Company
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sub-Criteria
Technical and
professional records
No.
12.
13.
Educational
background
10.
11.
030 years
030 years
030 years
030 years
030 years
030 years
9.
Possible-Option
Degree
Quality of the university where the application is graduated
Specialisation
Continual Professional Development
Yes - No
0100 points
Mechanical Engineering Civil Engineering Chemical EngineeringElectrical Engineering Others
BS-MS-PhD
0100 points
Design-Construction-Supervision-Managemant-others
0200 hours
0100 points
15,
Gender
Male-Female
17.
18,
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
General
management
abilities
16.
Demographic
features
14.
Age
Physical and mental health
Appearance
1880 years
Health-Unhealthy
0100 points
0500 persons
0100 points
0100 points
0100 points
0100 points
No.
C1
C2
C3
C4
C1
C2
1/2
C3
1/3
1/2
C4
1/3
1/2
xij min{xij }
rij
.
max{xij } min{xij }
(19)
rij
max{xij } xij
.
max{xij } min{xij }
(20)
No.
C1
C2
C3
C4
A1
185.9500
3.7500
0.0119
8.0000
A2
206.3800
7.8500
0.0596
9.0000
A3
211.4600
7.7100
0.0714
8.0000
A4
228.0000
14.0000
0.0357
8.0000
A5
185.8500
6.2500
0.0476
8.0000
A6
183.1800
7.8500
0.0595
9.0000
A7
225.2600
2.0000
0.0714
5.0000
A8
202.8200
13.3000
0.0952
10.0000
A9
216.3800
7.7100
0.0476
8.0000
A10
185.7500
10.1600
0.0595
9.0000
C1
C2
C3
C4
A1
0.938197
A2
0.482374
0.145833
0.6
0.4875
0.427371
A3
0.8
0.369032
0.475833
0.285714
0.6
A4
0.714286
0.6
A5
0.940428
0.354167
0.571429
0.6
A6
0.940428
0.4875
0.428571
0.8
A7
0.061133
0.285714
A8
0.561803
0.941667
A9
0.259259
0.475833
0.571429
0.6
A10
0.94266
0.68
0.428571
0.8
0.463
0.232
0.153
0.153
third step of the FTOPSIS analysis. For the fourth step, the
distance of each alternative from A* and A- can be
calculated using Eqs. (16) and (17). The fifth step finds an
ideal solution using Eq. (18). The resulting FTOPSIS analyses are
summarised in Table 11.
Table 8. Decision Matrix Using Fuzzy Linguistic Variables
No.
C1
C2
C3
C4
A1
VH
VL
VH
A2
A3
A4
VL
VH
A5
VH
A6
VH
A7
VL
VL
VL
A8
VH
VL
VH
A9
A10
VH
VH
DEA APPROACH
DEA is a linear-programming-based technique developed
by Charnes et al. (1978). DEA evaluates n Decision-Making
Units (DMUs). In this study, the 10 candidates are the DMUs.
Each DMU consumes varying amounts of m different inputs
to produce s different outputs. The relative efficiency of a
DMU is defined as the ratio of its total weighted output to its
total weighted input (Yang and Hung, 2007). As mentioned
in page 82, in this paper C1 and C3 could be considered
Then,
hk
u Y
v X
r rk
(21)
ik
v~i1
v~i 2
v~i 3
v~i 4
d i
A1
(0.56,0.81,1.00)
(0.00,0.01,0.06)
(0.56,0.81,1.00)
(0.12,0.25,0.42)
A2
(0.26,0.45,0.65)
(0.00,0.05,0.16)
(0.11,0.27,045)
A3
(0.11,0.27,045)
(0.00,0.05,0.16)
(0.11,0.27,045)
d i
CC i
4.9964
4.1964
0.456488
(0.19,0.35,0.55)
6.4893
1.4693
0.184618
(0.12,0.25,0.42)
7.5364
0.8564
0.10204
A4
(0.00,0.09,0.25)
(0.00,0.09,0.25)
(0.41,0.63,0.85)
(0.12,0.25,0.42)
6.962
1.682
0.194586
A5
(0.56,0.81,1.00)
(0.00,0.03,0.11)
(0.26,0.45,0.65)
(0.12,0.25,0.42)
5.6086
2.9286
0.343040
A6
(0.56,0.81,1.00)
(0.00,0.05,0.16)
(0.11,0.27,045)
(0.19,0.35,0.55)
6.1386
2.7464
0.309105
A7
(0.00,0.09,0.25)
(0.00,0.01,0.06)
(0.11,0.27,045)
(0.00,0.05,0.16)
8.1629
0.3899
0.045587
A8
(0.26,0.45,0.65)
(0.00,0.09,0.25)
(0.00,0.09,0.25)
(0.26,0.45,0.65)
8.3619
1.5264
0.154364
A9
(0.11,0.27,045)
(0.00,0.05,0.16)
(0.41,0.63,0.85)
(0.12,0.25,0.42)
5.7157
1.8564
0.245163
A10
(0.56,0.81,1.00)
(0.00,0.07,0.21)
(0.11,0.27,045)
(0.19,0.35,0.55)
5.6273
2.7673
0.329652
(1,1,1)
(1,1,1)
A+
AW
(1,1,1)
(0,0,0)
(0.75,0.90,1.00)
(1,1,1)
(0,0,0)
(0,0,0)
(0.55,0.70,0.85)
(0,0,0)
(0.35,0.50,0.65)
(0.15,0.30,0.45)
AHP and
FTOPSIS
DEA
A1
A1
A5
A5
A10
A8