2009 Second International Symposium on Electronic Commerce and Security

A Method Used for Quality Assessment of Construction Project Based on FCE and Group-decision AHP

Shi Huawang
School of Civil Engineering Hebei University of Engineering Handan, P.R.China e-mail: stone21st@163.com
AbstractConstruction project quality management, the basis of construction management, is crucial for construction firms to survive and grow in the industry. This paper presents the adoption of a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) model and group-decision analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to assist decision-makers in evaluating the quality of construction projects in China. We confirmed the weight of each index quantitatively by means of Group-decision AHP according to an established index system. Then, we defined the elements of an assessment matrix using fuzzy and a quality assessment model for construction project was set up. The advantage of this approach is that it does not rely on the experience of experts and it can improve the validity and the precision of evaluation. Consequently, it can reflect the quality status of construction project. Keywords-quality assessment; construction project; fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE); Group-decision Analytical Hierarchy Process(AHP).

First, we confirmed the weight of each index quantitatively by mean s of Group-decision AHP according to an established index system. Then, we defined the elements of an assessment matrix using fuzzy and a quality assessment model for construction project is set up. The advantage of this approach is that it does not rely on the experience of experts an d it can improve the validity and the precision of evaluation. Consequently, it can reflect the quality status of construction project. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2, the evaluation index system of product development effect is introduced. In section 3, the definition and algorithm of formatting; fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) and Group-decision Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) are introduced. In section 4, Finally, a procedure of construction project quality assessment is analysed in a case study. II. QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT INDEX SYSTEM

I.

INTRODUCTION

Construction project quality assessment is one of the most important classes of quality management, Evaluation of the quality of construction is a typical multi-index evaluation. In practice, the evaluation of the construction project has a continuing nature, characterized by repetitive, frequent or regular, has many results of different cases accumulated, for example: national high-quality project evaluation, project quality evaluation in Beijing (Great Wall Cup) Award, as well as the internal selection of construction enterprises and the project's acceptance evaluation of department in charge of construction are regular or irregular carried on[1,2]. As practiced today, construction quality assessment and prediction generally relys on experts' intuitive experience. Scientific methods should be developed and employed during project planning and design stages in order to raise quality estimate and prediction accuracy. At presentthere are a number of integration assessment methods[3], for example, AHP, grey evaluation, fuzzy comprehensive judgement, AHP-fuzzy comprehensive judgement, etc. We should review all the assessment methods in order to find the most suitable method for assessing the quality level of a construction project. Some experts have studied these. We carried out a comprehensive evaluation of a construction project using a fuzzy analysis..

The establishment of the assessment index system should use system engineering theory and method and be closely associated with engineering practice[4]. Because many factors are involved in the quality assessment of a jacket loading procedure after consulting specialists, five independent factors constitute the main assessment indexes. They are: (1) Entity quality: Including mainly the entity situation of affecting the construction project, i.e., foundation engineering, The main works, Building decoration engineering, Roof engineering , Water Building electricity, Intelligent Building, Ventilation and air conditioning, Lift installation, Built environment and Installation of outdoor, Drainage and heating (2) Quality assurance material: Including assurance material of Architecture and Structural Engineering, Drainage and heating, Electrical installation, Ventilation and air conditioning, Lift installation and Intelligent Building (3) Impression quality: Including impression quality of Architecture and Structural Engineering, Drainage and heating, Electrical installation, Ventilation and air conditioning, Lift installation and Intelligent Building (4) Design quality: Including aspects just as Structural design, Construction feasibility, Process Design, Equipment design, Water and electricity, Controlled design, Architectural design and facade design, Coordination of the professional design, Whether or not to meet the requirements of other departments and Drawing normative
333

978-0-7695-3643-9/09 $25.00 2009 IEEE DOI 10.1109/ISECS.2009.130

(5) Influence on environment: Including influence on environment of design phase, construction phase, service period, and after the expiration. The system of assessment indexes is shown in Table1. III. QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BASED ON FCE

A. Brief Introduction to FCE Zadeh[7] first proposed Fuzzy Logic as a tool with which to describe uncertainty and imprecision. Because FL imitates the high- order mode in which the human brain makes decisions in the face of uncertainty or vagueness, it provides an effective way for automated systems to describe highly complex, ill-denied, or difficult-to-analyse subjects. In generals, Fuzzy Logic is composed of a fuzzier, rule base, inference engine and defuzzier[8]. Suppose U = {u1 , u 2 , , u n } is composed of evaluation index, V = {v1 , v 2 , , v n } represent the evaluation factors. Suppose A = ( a1 , a 2 , a m ) is the weight of the evaluation index, Where

0 < a i 1 , ai = 1
1

Suppose comment set is

V = (v1 , v 2 , v3 , v 4 ) ,and v1 represent the grade is best, v 2 represent the grade is better, v3 represent the grade is average, v 4

B. Method of Group-decision Analytical Hierarchy Process(AHP) The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a structured technique for helping people deal with complex decisions. Rather than prescribing a "correct" decision, the AHP helps people to determine one that suits their needs and wants. Based on mathematics and psychology, it was developed by Thomas L. Saaty[9] in the 1970s and has been extensively studied and refined since then. The procedure for using the AHP can be summarized as[10,11]: Model the problem as a hierarchy containing the decision goal, the alternatives for reaching it, and the criteria for evaluating the alternatives. Establish priorities among the elements of the hierarchy by making a series of judgments based on pairwise comparisons of the elements. For example, when comparing potential real-estate purchases, the investors might say they prefer location over price and price over timing. Synthesize these judgments to yield a set of overall priorities for the hierarchy. This would combine the investors' judgments about location, price and timing for properties A, B, C, and D into overall priorities for each property. Check the consistency of the judgments. Come to a final decision based on the results of this process. According to the above steps to achieve the ultimate weight vector of every decision-makers respectively.

represent the grade is bad. Fuzzy relation from to can be description as follow:

ri1 ri11 ri12 r r ri 22 i 21 i2 Ri = = rini 1 rini 2 rni Where rij (i = 1,2, m;

ri14 ri 24 rini 3 rini 4 j = 1,2, n) ri13 ri 23

Wk = ( w1k , w2 k ,, wmk ) T , k = 1,2,3,t (4) Assuming there is t decision-makers, the number of factors to be evaluated are m , for each given a series the
determining matrix of decision-makers, then by calculating the weighted average base sequencing vector the relative weight vector can be got as:

(1)

= ( 1 , 2 , , m ) .
T

j =

The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation can be got as follow

B = A R

j = (wj1 ) (wj 2 ) (wjt )

1 2

i =1

, j = 1,2, , m
i

(5)

(6)

(2)

Where,

In this paper, the quality and grade of construction works are divided into four grades, namely: "best", "good", "qualified", "unqualified", and each grade score is 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, 0.1 respectively. So vector

k =1

= 1, 1 , 2 , , t is weight coefficient
1 . t

of decision-maker, Specially, 1 = 2 = = t = Finally, the standard deviation was calculated as follow:

C = [0.8,0.6,0.4,0.1] is got. an evaluation of a quality rating score S i was set up, so S i = Bi C (3)
T

j =
When

1 t (w jk t 1 k =1

(7)

j < 0 .5 ,

the group-decision is acceptable, and

right-vector of the indicators is feedback to each decision-

334

makers. If a number of decision-makers accept the weight vector, then calculation end, otherwise, ask decision-makers to propose amendments to judge views, and so repeatedly, until the weight vector is satisfactory to decision-makers. IV.
CASE STUDY

It will take 15 projects as the evaluation object, and use the above method to evaluate the overall quality of projects and sort them. The assessment steps are as follows: A. The Establishment of Fuzzy Matrix According to the above unascertained measure e synthetic appraisal model, we take one hundred typical
TABLE I.

enterprises in one certain region (supposed to object1)for example to evaluate synthetically. The number of the appraisal experts is ten. The appraisal index system is shown in Table 1. The index set is {best, good, qualified, unqualified}and it is divided into five appraisal scales, and by all appearances, it is positive sequence. The each factor is total ten score. Then, each appraisal object is ten score and the distinguishment is that the degrees are different. The scoring principle is fit the measurement criterion. Based on the statistical data of the appraisal objects, the single measurement matrix can be got by Eq. (1).

THE SET EVALUATING QUALITY FACTOR APPRAISAL OF A ENGINEERING Fuzzy Comprehensive Matrix

First-Level Indices

Second-Level Indices

Best( v1 )

Good( v 2 )

Qualified( v3 )

Unqualified ( v 4 )

foundation engineering u11 main works u12 Building decoration engineering Roof engineering Entity quality u1

0.9 0.8

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(u13 )

0.7 0.8

(u14 ) (u15 ) (u17 ) (u19 ) (u16 )

Water Building electricity Intelligent Building

0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8

Ventilation and air conditioning Lift installation

(u18 )

Built environment and Installation of outdoor Drainage and heating u110

Architecture and Structural Engineering u 21 Drainage and heating Quality assurance material u 2 Electrical installation

(u 22 ) (u 23 ) (u 24 )

0.7 0.9 0.7

Ventilation and air conditioning Lift installation u 25 Intelligent Building u 26

B. The Determination of Weights Weight set of indices can be got through group-decision AHP. The proportion of the scale of projectentity quality are determined by export analysis combining the analytic hierarchy process, as shown the following matrix:

335

Solving Matrix Eigenvalue problems, EA = as follow:

1 0 .5 0.33 0.33 0.33 E= 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33

2 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1010

Similarly, the appraisal of Quality assurance material, Impression quality, Design quality and Influence on environment are calculated as: 0.7660.770.7720.766. V.
CONCLUSIONS

S = B C = [0.85,0.15,0,0] [0.8,0.6,0.4,0.1] = 0.77

T

max A , got

max = 10.01

CI =

n max 10 10.01 = = 0.001 n 1 9 C 0.001 = 0.0075 < 0.1 CR = I = 1.49 RI

Therefore, the matrix meet the consistency requirements. The weight set of projectentity quality can be got as:

A = [0.24,0.15,0.08,0.08,0.08,0.08,0.08,0.08,0.08,0.08]

C. Comprehensive Evaluation By Eq.(1), the evaluating matrix of fuzzy measure of single index is obtained as follows:

Using the theory and method of fuzzy measure, the fuzzy model are established to analyse the evaluating indices and assess the quality of construction projects. By comparing indicators values of every project, we can find relative weak places of quality then improve and enhance quality assurance measures. Take project No.10 for example, these indicatorsvalues, such as Entity quality, Impression qualityare quite low. These aspects need to be improved. This paper applies fuzzy comprehensive evaluation models and Group-decision Analytical Hierarchy Process in assessment of quality of construction project. Weight must be thought in the evaluation process. AHP is the first choice. The latter two models is objective. The unascertained function comes from measurement space and satisfies measurement criterions strictly. indicator classification weight is calculated by given data, not by experts. FCM analysis provides evaluation criterions for the fuzzy measurement model, the two models combine perfectively. Using qualitative and quantitative analyses, the procedure overcomes the disadvantage of subjective and perceptual assessment. The demonstration analysis shows these methods can measure learning ability effectively. And It is easy to realize scientific and rational decisionmaking. REFERENCES
[1] The Character Institution of Building , Code of Practice For Project Management For Construction Singapore Publishers Pte Ltd ,1996. [2] H.k.Jackson,N.L.Frigon. Management2000[M]. Newyork. Van Nostrand,1994. [3] Wang HaiqiaoShi ShiliangGrey interrelated evaluation of indoor air quality in buildings. Indoor+Built Environment, 19998(5)304 308 [4] Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inform ctrl 1965;8:338-53. [5] Cox E. The fuzzy systems hand book . 2nd ed. New York: AP Professional, 1999. [6] Zimmermann,H.J.(1987). Fuzzy Set, decision making and expert system. Boston:Kluwer. [7] Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inform ctrl 1965;8:,38-53 [8] Cox E. The fuzzy systems hand book . 2nd ed. New York: AP Professional, 1999. [9] Saaty, Thomas L.. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RWS Publications,2001 [10] R. D. Holder "Response to Holder's Comments on the Analytic Hierarchy Process: Response to the Response" The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 42, No. 10 (Oct., 1991), pp. 914918 [11] Saaty, Thomas L.; Ernest H. Forman. The Hierarchon: A Dictionary of Hierarchies. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RWS Publications. 1992

Using.(2), the comprehensive evaluating matrix of fuzzy measure of entity quality is obtained as follows: Using.(3), the comprehensive evaluating score is got as follows

9 10 8 7 10 10 8 10 9 R = 10 9 10 9 10 8 10 9 10 9 10

1 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B = A R = [0.85,0.15,0,0]

336