IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v91y2006i1p84-99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A method for the efficient prioritization of infrastructure renewal projects

Author

Listed:
  • Karydas, D.M.
  • Gifun, J.F.

Abstract

The infrastructure renewal program at MIT consists of a large number of projects with an estimated budget that could approach $1 billion. Infrastructure renewal at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is the process of evaluating and investing in the maintenance of facility systems and basic structure to preserve existing campus buildings. The selection and prioritization of projects must be addressed with a systematic method for the optimal allocation of funds and other resources. This paper presents a case study of a prioritization method utilizing multi-attribute utility theory. This method was developed at MIT's Department of Nuclear Engineering and was deployed by the Department of Facilities after appropriate modifications were implemented to address the idiosyncrasies of infrastructure renewal projects and the competing criteria and constraints that influence the judgment of the decision-makers. Such criteria include minimization of risk, optimization of economic impact, and coordination with academic policies, programs, and operations of the Institute. A brief overview of the method is presented, as well as the results of its application to the prioritization of infrastructure renewal projects. Results of workshops held at MIT with the participation of stakeholders demonstrate the feasibility of the prioritization method and the usefulness of this approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Karydas, D.M. & Gifun, J.F., 2006. "A method for the efficient prioritization of infrastructure renewal projects," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 84-99.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:91:y:2006:i:1:p:84-99
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2004.11.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832004002935
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2004.11.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George E. Apostolakis & Susan E. Pickett, 1998. "Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 621-634, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patterson, S.A. & Apostolakis, G.E., 2007. "Identification of critical locations across multiple infrastructures for terrorist actions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(9), pages 1183-1203.
    2. Andres,Luis Alberto & Biller,S. A. Dan & Herrera Dappe,Matias, 2014. "Infrastructure gap in South Asia : infrastructure needs, prioritization, and financing," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7032, The World Bank.
    3. Taillandier, F. & Sauce, G. & Bonetto, R., 2009. "Risk-based investment trade-off related to building facility management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(4), pages 785-795.
    4. Carnero, MaCarmen, 2006. "An evaluation system of the setting up of predictive maintenance programmes," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(8), pages 945-963.
    5. Pascual, R. & Del Castillo, G. & Louit, D. & Knights, P., 2009. "Business-oriented prioritization: A novel graphical technique," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(8), pages 1308-1313.
    6. Hua Li & George E. Apostolakis & Joseph Gifun & William VanSchalkwyk & Susan Leite & David Barber, 2009. "Ranking the Risks from Multiple Hazards in a Small Community," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 438-456, March.
    7. Junn-Yuan Teng & Wen-Chih Huang & Maw-Cherng Lin, 2010. "Systematic budget allocation for transportation construction projects: a case in Taiwan," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 331-361, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amanda P. Rehr & Mitchell J. Small & Paul S. Fischbeck & Patricia Bradley & William S. Fisher, 2014. "The role of scientific studies in building consensus in environmental decision making: a coral reef example," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 60-87, March.
    2. Hua Li & George E. Apostolakis & Joseph Gifun & William VanSchalkwyk & Susan Leite & David Barber, 2009. "Ranking the Risks from Multiple Hazards in a Small Community," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 438-456, March.
    3. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2021. "Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 503-518, March.
    4. Emanuele Borgonovo & Veronica Cappelli & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2015. "Risk Analysis and Decision Theory: Foundations," Working Papers 556, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    5. George E. Apostolakis & Douglas M. Lemon, 2005. "A Screening Methodology for the Identification and Ranking of Infrastructure Vulnerabilities Due to Terrorism," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 361-376, April.
    6. Mitchell J. Small & Ümit Güvenç & Michael L. DeKay, 2014. "When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 1978-1994, November.
    7. Robert Goble & Vicki M. Bier, 2013. "Risk Assessment Can Be a Game‐Changing Information Technology—But Too Often It Isn't," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1942-1951, November.
    8. Judith Petts & Catherine Brooks, 2006. "Expert Conceptualisations of the Role of Lay Knowledge in Environmental Decisionmaking: challenges for Deliberative Democracy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(6), pages 1045-1059, June.
    9. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "The Role of Quantitative Risk Assessments for Characterizing Risk and Uncertainty and Delineating Appropriate Risk Management Options, with Special Emphasis on Terrorism Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(4), pages 587-600, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:91:y:2006:i:1:p:84-99. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.