IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i10p5502-d554605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Tree and AHP Methods Application for Projects Assessment: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Augustinas Maceika

    (The Faculty of Mechanics, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio Ave. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Andrej Bugajev

    (The Faculty of Fundamental Sciences, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio Ave. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Olga Regina Šostak

    (The Faculty of Fundamental Sciences, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio Ave. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Tatjana Vilutienė

    (The Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio Ave. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

This research is dedicated to the modelling of decision process occurring during the implementation of construction projects. Recent studies generally do not assess the robustness of the decisions regarding the possible changes during the construction project implementation. However, such an assessment might increase the reliability of the decision-making process. We addressed this gap through a new model that combines the decision-making process modelling with the AHP method and includes the analysis of model stability concerning stakeholders’ behaviour. We used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Decision tree methods to model the decision-making process. The proposed model was validated on a case study of multiple construction projects. The assessment was performed from individual investor’s and independent expert’s perspectives. The criteria for the assessment were selected according to the principles of sustainability. We performed the sensitivity analysis, making it possible to assess the possible changes of the decisions depending on the potential patterns of the decision-makers’ behaviour. The results of the study show that, sometimes, small fluctuations in the project factors affect the project selection indicating the possible lack of the robustness of the project decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Augustinas Maceika & Andrej Bugajev & Olga Regina Šostak & Tatjana Vilutienė, 2021. "Decision Tree and AHP Methods Application for Projects Assessment: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-33, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5502-:d:554605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5502/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5502/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ramin Gharizadeh Beiragh & Reza Alizadeh & Saeid Shafiei Kaleibari & Fausto Cavallaro & Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Romualdas Bausys & Abbas Mardani, 2020. "An integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for Sustainability Performance Assessment for Insurance Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Linh N. K. Duong & Jason X. Wang & Lincoln C. Wood & Torsten Reiners & Mona Koushan, 2021. "The value of incremental environmental sustainability innovation in the construction industry: an event study," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(5), pages 398-418, May.
    3. Foroogh Ghasemi & Mohammad Hossein Mahmoudi Sari & Vahidreza Yousefi & Reza Falsafi & Jolanta Tamošaitienė, 2018. "Project Portfolio Risk Identification and Analysis, Considering Project Risk Interactions and Using Bayesian Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-23, May.
    4. Birte Freudenreich & Florian Lüdeke-Freund & Stefan Schaltegger, 2020. "A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 3-18, September.
    5. Nafeesa Yunus, 2019. "Dynamic Linkages Among U.S. Real Estate Sectors Before and After the Housing Crisis," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 264-289, February.
    6. Che, Limei, 2018. "Investor types and stock return volatility," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 139-161.
    7. Sangwon Lee & Suneung Ahn & Changsoon Park & You-Jin Park, 2016. "Development of a Resource Allocation Model Using Competitive Advantage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-13, February.
    8. Andrej Bugajev & Olga R. Šostak, 2018. "An Algorithm for Modelling the Impact of the Judicial Conflict-Resolution Process on Construction Investment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, January.
    9. Nick French, 2001. "Decision theory and real estate investment: an analysis of the decision-making processes of real estate investment fund managers," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(7), pages 399-410.
    10. Nerija Banaitiene & Audrius Banaitis, 2012. "Risk Management in Construction Projects," Chapters, in: Nerija Banaitiene (ed.), Risk Management - Current Issues and Challenges, IntechOpen.
    11. Abdul Salam Khan & Catalin Iulian Pruncu & Razaullah Khan & Khawar Naeem & Abdul Ghaffar & Pakeeza Ashraf & Shah Room, 2020. "A Trade-off Analysis of Economic and Environmental Aspects of a Disruption Based Closed-Loop Supply Chain Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-28, August.
    12. Seyed Morteza Hatefi & Mohammad Ehsan Basiri & Jolanta Tamošaitienė, 2019. "An Evidential Model for Environmental Risk Assessment in Projects Using Dempster–Shafer Theory of Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-16, November.
    13. Agarwal, Sumit & He, Jia & Sing, Tien Foo & Song, Changcheng, 2019. "Do real estate agents have information advantages in housing markets?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 715-735.
    14. Wei Wang, 2021. "The concept of sustainable construction project management in international practice," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16358-16380, November.
    15. Marco Migliorelli, 2021. "What Do We Mean by Sustainable Finance? Assessing Existing Frameworks and Policy Risks," Post-Print hal-03476960, HAL.
    16. Sebastiano Carbonara & Davide Stefano, 2020. "An Operational Protocol for the Valorisation of Public Real Estate Assets in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    17. Seyed Morteza Hatefi & Jolanta Tamošaitienė, 2018. "Construction Projects Assessment Based on the Sustainable Development Criteria by an Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Improved GRA Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, March.
    18. Tatjana Vilutiene & Česlovas Ignatavičius, 2018. "Towards Sustainable Renovation: Key Performance Indicators for Quality Monitoring," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    19. Kalra, Nidhi & Hallegatte, Stephane & Lempert, Robert & Brown, Casey & Fozzard, Adrian & Gill, Stuart & Shah, Ankur, 2014. "Agreeing on robust decisions : new processes for decision making under deep uncertainty," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6906, The World Bank.
    20. Anna Wojewnik-Filipkowska & Joanna Węgrzyn, 2019. "Understanding of Public–Private Partnership Stakeholders as a Condition of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, February.
    21. Jesús Cuadrado & Mikel Zubizarreta & Eduardo Rojí & Harkaitz García & Marcos Larrauri, 2015. "Sustainability-Related Decision Making in Industrial Buildings: An AHP Analysis," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2015, pages 1-13, September.
    22. Adriane MacDonald & Amelia Clarke & Lei Huang, 2019. "Multi-stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainability: Designing Decision-Making Processes for Partnership Capacity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 409-426, December.
    23. Marco Migliorelli, 2021. "What Do We Mean by Sustainable Finance? Assessing Existing Frameworks and Policy Risks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-17, January.
    24. Huang, Xiaoxia, 2007. "Optimal project selection with random fuzzy parameters," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 513-522, April.
    25. Simen Pedersen & Kristin E. Gangås & Madhu Chetri & Harry P. Andreassen, 2020. "Economic Gain vs. Ecological Pain—Environmental Sustainability in Economies Based on Renewable Biological Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-16, April.
    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. Sayyid Ali Banihashemi & Mohammad Khalilzadeh & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jurgita Antucheviciene, 2021. "Investigating the Environmental Impacts of Construction Projects in Time-Cost Trade-Off Project Scheduling Problems with CoCoSo Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Mateusz Trzeciak, 2021. "Sustainable Risk Management in IT Enterprises," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Sueun Jung & Jihyun Lee, 2023. "Exploring a Conceptual Framework of Koreans’ Residential Satisfaction Based on Maslow’s Human Needs: A Qualitative and Quantitative Integrated Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-40, September.
    4. Kosa Golić & Tatjana Kosić & Vesna Kosorić, 2023. "AHP-Based Model for Energy-Sustainable Renovation of Building Envelopes: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-31, May.

    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. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jonas Šaparauskas & Jurgita Antucheviciene, 2018. "Sustainability in Construction Engineering," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-7, June.
    2. Jolanta Tamošaitienė & Vahidreza Yousefi & Hamed Tabasi, 2021. "Project Portfolio Construction Using Extreme Value Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13, January.
    3. Augustinas Maceika & Andrej Bugajev & Olga R. Šostak, 2019. "The Modelling of Roof Installation Projects Using Decision Trees and the AHP Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, December.
    4. Daniela Kletzan-Slamanig & Angela Köppl, 2021. "The Evolution of the Green Finance Agenda – Institutional Anchoring and a Survey-based Assessment for Austria," WIFO Working Papers 640, WIFO.
    5. Zsuzsanna Győri & Yahya Khan & Krisztina Szegedi, 2021. "Business Model and Principles of a Values-Based Bank—Case Study of MagNet Hungarian Community Bank," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-27, August.
    6. Aghilasse Kashi & Mohamed Eskandar Shah, 2023. "Bibliometric Review on Sustainable Finance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-30, April.
    7. Ozili, Peterson K, 2021. "Making sustainable finance sustainable," MPRA Paper 109924, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Olatunji Abdul Shobande & Joseph Onuche Enemona, 2021. "A Multivariate VAR Model for Evaluating Sustainable Finance and Natural Resource Curse in West Africa: Evidence from Nigeria and Ghana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, March.
    9. María Jesús Segovia‐Vargas & I. Marta Miranda‐García & Freddy Alejandro Oquendo‐Torres, 2023. "Sustainable finance: The role of savings and credit cooperatives in Ecuador," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(3), pages 951-980, September.
    10. Maymunah Abdullatif Alismail & Abdulmohsen Saud Albesher, 2023. "Evaluating Developer Responses to App Reviews: The Case of Mobile Banking Apps in Saudi Arabia and the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-24, April.
    11. Małgorzata Janicka & Artur Sajnóg, 2022. "The ESG Reporting of EU Public Companies—Does the Company’s Capitalisation Matter?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, April.
    12. Júlio Lobão, 2022. "Herding Behavior in the Market for Green Cryptocurrencies: Evidence from CSSD and CSAD Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-17, October.
    13. Gimede Gigante & Emiliano Sironi & Caterina Tridenti, 2023. "At the Frontier of Sustainable Finance: Impact Investing and the Financial Tradeoff; Evidence from Private Portfolio Companies in the United Kingdom," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-21, February.
    14. Gabija Simaite & Greta Keliuotyte-Staniuleniene, 2023. "Financial sustainability and derivatives: a theoretical approach," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 39(1), pages 370-376, January.
    15. Adriana Kocornik-Mina & Ramon Bastida-Vialcanet & Marcos Eguiguren Huerta, 2021. "Social Impact of Value-Based Banking: Best Practises and a Continuity Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-40, July.
    16. Jens Teubler & Sebastian Schuster, 2022. "Causal Strands for Social Bonds—A Case Study on the Credibility of Claims from Impact Reporting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-29, October.
    17. Milena Kowalska, 2021. "The Relationship between Income Inequalities and Economic Growth: New Evidence," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3B), pages 152-164.
    18. Pruethsan Sutthichaimethee & Danupon Ariyasajjakorn, 2021. "The Management Efficiency of the Sustainable Development Policy under Thailand s Energy Law: Enriching the SEM-based on the ARIMAXi model," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 11(5), pages 472-482.
    19. Jorge Luis García & Ignacio de los Ríos, 2021. "Model to Develop Skills in Accounting Students for a 4.0 Industry and 2030 Agenda: From an International Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-31, August.
    20. Christoph Nedopil & Truzaar Dordi & Olaf Weber, 2021. "The Nature of Global Green Finance Standards—Evolution, Differences, and Three Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-23, March.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5502-:d:554605. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.