Developing an MCDM Model for the Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks of BIM Adoption
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Benefits
2.2. Opportunities
2.3. Costs
2.4. Risks
3. Methodology
3.1. Selection of Experts
3.2. Interval-Valued Fuzzy Delphi Method
3.3. Fuzzy Parsimonious Analytic Hierarchy Process
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. BOCRs of BIM Adoption in the Iranian Construction Industry
4.2. Significance of BIM BOCRs
4.2.1. Benefits and Opportunities
4.2.2. Costs and Risks
4.3. Validation
4.4. Implications
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Durdyev, S.; Ashour, M.; Connelly, S.; Mahdiyar, A. Barriers to the Implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) for Facility Management. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 46, 103736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tran, S.V.-T.; Nguyen, T.L.; Chi, H.-L.; Lee, D.; Park, C. Generative Planning for Construction Safety Surveillance Camera Installation in 4D BIM Environment. Autom. Constr. 2022, 134, 104103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Ashmori, Y.Y.; Othman, I.; Rahmawati, Y.; Amran, Y.H.M.; Sabah, S.H.A.; Rafindadi, A.D.; Mikić, M. BIM Benefits and Its Influence on the BIM Implementation in Malaysia. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2020, 11, 1013–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.-B.; Chou, H.-Y. Subjective Benefit Evaluation Model for Immature BIM-Enabled Stakeholders. Autom. Constr. 2019, 106, 102908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Ding, L.; Rao, Y.; Luo, H.; Medjdoub, B.; Zhong, H. Formulating Project-Level Building Information Modeling Evaluation Framework from the Perspectives of Organizations: A Review. Autom. Constr. 2017, 81, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sadeghifam, A.N.A.N.; Meynagh, M.M.M.M.; Tabatabaee, S.; Mahdiyar, A.; Memari, A.; Ismail, S. Assessment of the Building Components in the Energy Efficient Design of Tropical Residential Buildings: An Application of BIM and Statistical Taguchi Method. Energy 2019, 188, 116080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiavi, B.; Havard, V.; Beddiar, K.; Baudry, D. BIM Data Flow Architecture with AR/VR Technologies: Use Cases in Architecture, Engineering and Construction. Autom. Constr. 2022, 134, 104054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amin Ranjbar, A.; Ansari, R.; Taherkhani, R.; Hosseini, M.R. Developing a Novel Cash Flow Risk Analysis Framework for Construction Projects Based on 5D BIM. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 103341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ildarabadi, P.; Alamatian, J. Proposing a New Function for Evaluation of the Financial Risk of Construction Projects Using Monte Carlo Method: Application on Iranian Construction Industry. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 103143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mashayekhi, A.; Heravi, G. A Decision-Making Framework Opted for Smart Building’s Equipment Based on Energy Consumption and Cost Trade-off Using BIM and MIS. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvanchi, A.; TohidiFar, A.; Mousavi, M.; Azad, R.; Rokooei, S. A Critical Study of the Existing Issues in Manufacturing Maintenance Systems: Can BIM Fill the Gap? Comput. Ind. 2021, 131, 103484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabatabaee, S.; Mahdiyar, A.; Durdyev, S.; Mohandes, S.R.; Ismail, S. An Assessment Model of Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks of Green Roof Installation: A Multi Criteria Decision Making Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alalwan, A.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P. Factors Influencing Adoption of Mobile Banking by Jordanian Bank Customers: Extending UTAUT2 with Trust. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mitropoulos, P.; Tatum, C.B. Technology Adoption Decisions in Construction Organizations. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1999, 125, 330–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sepasgozar, S.M.E. Digital Technology Utilisation Decisions for Facilitating the Implementation of Industry 4.0 Technologies. Constr. Innov. 2020, 21, 476–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arayici, Y.; Coates, P.; Koskela, L.; Kagioglou, M.; Usher, C.; O’Reilly, K. Technology Adoption in the BIM Implementation for Lean Architectural Practice. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, D.W.M.; Olawumi, T.O.; Ho, A.M.L. Perceived Benefits of and Barriers to Building Information Modelling (BIM) Implementation in Construction: The Case of Hong Kong. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 25, 100764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, W.; Fung, A.; Peng, Y.; Liang, C.; Rowlinson, S. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Building Information Modeling Implementation in Building Projects through Demystification of Time-Effort Distribution Curves. Build. Environ. 2014, 82, 317–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seyis, S. Mixed Method Review for Integrating Building Information Modeling and Life-Cycle Assessments. Build. Environ. 2020, 173, 106703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, Y.; Hammad, A.W.A.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Arashpour, M. A Neural Network Approach to Predicting the Net Costs Associated with BIM Adoption. Autom. Constr. 2020, 119, 103306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mostafa, S.; Kim, K.P.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Rahnamayiezekavat, P. Exploring the Status, Benefits, Barriers and Opportunities of Using BIM for Advancing Prefabrication Practice. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 20, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Alvarado, J.F.; Coloma-Miró, J.F.; Cortés-Pérez, J.P.; García-García, M.; Fernández-Rodríguez, S. Proposing a Sustainable Urban 3D Model to Minimize the Potential Risk Associated with Green Infrastructure by Applying Engineering Tools. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 812, 152312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Röck, M.; Hollberg, A.; Habert, G.; Passer, A. LCA and BIM: Visualization of Environmental Potentials in Building Construction at Early Design Stages. Build. Environ. 2018, 140, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Z.; Zhang, J. BIM- and 4D-Based Integrated Solution of Analysis and Management for Conflicts and Structural Safety Problems during Construction. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opoku, A.; Deng, J.; Elmualim, A.; Ekung, S.; Hussien, A.A.; Abdalla, S.B. Sustainable Procurement in Construction and the Realisation of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 376, 134294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alreshidi, E.; Mourshed, M.; Rezgui, Y. Factors for Effective BIM Governance. J. Build. Eng. 2017, 10, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saieg, P.; Dominguez, E.; Nascimento, D.; Goyannes, R. Interactions of Building Information Modeling, Lean and Sustainability on the Architectural, Engineering and Construction Industry: A Systematic Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 788–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chien, K.-F.; Wu, Z.-H.; Huang, S.-C. Identifying and Assessing Critical Risk Factors for BIM Projects: Empirical Study. Autom. Constr. 2014, 45, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olanrewaju, O.I.; Kineber, A.F.; Chileshe, N.; Edwards, D.J. Modelling the Relationship between Building Information Modelling (BIM) Implementation Barriers, Usage and Awareness on Building Project Lifecycle. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walasek, D.; Barszcz, A. Analysis of the Adoption Rate of Building Information Modeling [BIM] and Its Return on Investment [ROI]. Procedia Eng. 2017, 172, 1227–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charef, R.; Emmitt, S.; Fouchal, F. Building Information Modelling Adoption in the European Union: An Overview. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 25, 100777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eadie, R.; McLernon, T.; Patton, A. An Investigation into the Legal Issues Relating to Building Information Modelling (BIM). In Proceedings of the COBRA AUBEA 2015, Sydney, Australia, 8–10 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia, A.J.; Mollaoglu, S.; Syal, M. Implementation of BIM in Small Home-Building Businesses. Am. Soc. Civil. Eng. 2018, 23, 04018007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, A.; Brahim, J. Roles and Responsibilities of Construction Players in Projects Using Building Information Modeling (BIM). Prod. Lifecycle Manag. Era Internet Things 2015, 1, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Tookey, J.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Naismith, N.; Azhar, S.; Efimova, O.; Raahemifar, K. Building Information Modelling (BIM) Uptake: Clear Benefits, Understanding Its Implementation, Risks and Challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 1046–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safari, K.; AzariJafari, H. Challenges and Opportunities for Integrating BIM and LCA: Methodological Choices and Framework Development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 67, 102728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, T.; Chen, K.; Xue, F.; Lu, W. Barriers to Building Information Modeling (BIM) Implementation in China’s Prefabricated Construction: An Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 949–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borges Viana, V.L.; Marques Carvalho, M.T. Prioritization of Risks Related to BIM Implementation in Brazilian Public Agencies Using Fuzzy Logic. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 36, 102104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taghipour, A.; Rouyendegh, B.D.; Ünal, A.; Piya, S. Selection of Suppliers for Speech Recognition Products in IT Projects by Combining Techniques with an Integrated Fuzzy MCDM. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abowitz, D.A.; Toole, T.M. Mixed Method Research: Fundamental Issues of Design, Validity, and Reliability in Construction Research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadi, F.; Sadi, M.K.; Nateghi, F.; Abdullah, A.; Skitmore, M. A Hybrid Quality Function Deployment and Cybernetic Analytic Network Process Model for Project Manager Selection. J. Civil. Eng. Manag. 2014, 20, 795–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mohandes, S.R.; Sadeghi, H.; Mahdiyar, A.; Durdyev, S.; Banaitis, A.; Yahya, K.; Ismail, S. Assessing Construction Labours’ Safety Level: A Fuzzy MCDM Approach. J. Civil. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bouzon, M.; Govindan, K.; Rodriguez, C.M.T.; Campos, L.M.S. Identification and Analysis of Reverse Logistics Barriers Using Fuzzy Delphi Method and AHP. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 108, 182–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallowell, M.R.; Gambatese, J.A. Qualitative Research: Application of the Delphi Method to CEM Research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L.; Özdemir, M.S. How Many Judges Should There Be in a Group? Ann. Data Sci. 2015, 1, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ebrahimi, S.; Bridgelall, R. A Fuzzy Delphi Analytic Hierarchy Model to Rank Factors Influencing Public Transit Mode Choice: A Case Study. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2021, 39, 100496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalkey, N.; Helmer, O. An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. Manag. Sci 1963, 9, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, S.A.A.; Solangi, Y.A.; Ikram, M. Analysis of Barriers to the Adoption of Cleaner Energy Technologies in Pakistan Using Modified Delphi and Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1037–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunduz, M.; Elsherbeny, H.A. Operational Framework for Managing Construction-Contract Administration Practitioners’ Perspective through Modified Delphi Method. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 4019110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, Y.-L.; Lee, C.-H.; Kreng, V.B. The Application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP in Lubricant Regenerative Technology Selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohandes, S.R.; Zhang, X. Towards the Development of a Comprehensive Hybrid Fuzzy-Based Occupational Risk Assessment Model for Construction Workers. Saf. Sci. 2019, 115, 294–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabatabaee, S.; Ashour, M.; Mohandes, S.R.; Sadeghi, H.; Mahdiyar, A.; Hosseini, M.R.; Ismail, S. Deterrents to the Adoption of Green Walls: A Hybrid Fuzzy-Based Approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2022, 29, 3460–3479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durdyev, S.; Mohandes, S.R.; Mahdiyar, A.; Ismail, S. What Drives Clients to Purchase Green Building?: The Cybernetic Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanujkic, D.; Karabasevic, D.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Brauers, W.K.M. An Extension of the Multimoora Method for Solving Complex Decision-Making Problems Based on the Use of Interval-Valued Triangular Fuzzy Numbers. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2015, 14, 355–375. [Google Scholar]
- Gurgun, A.P.; Koc, K. Contractor Prequalification for Green Buildings—Evidence from Turkey. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 1377–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Owusu, E.K.; Pärn, E.; Edwards, D.J. Review of Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Construction. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2018, 19, 436–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emrouznejad, A.; Marra, M. The State of the Art Development of AHP (1979–2017): A Literature Review with a Social Network Analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 55, 6653–6675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abastante, F.; Corrente, S.; Greco, S.; Ishizaka, A.; Lami, I.M. A New Parsimonious AHP Methodology: Assigning Priorities to Many Objects by Comparing Pairwise Few Reference Objects. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019, 127, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Velasquez, M.; Hester, P.T. An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. Int. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 10, 56–66. [Google Scholar]
- Dotoli, M.; Epicoco, N.; Falagario, M. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques for the Management of Public Procurement Tenders: A Case Study. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 88, 106064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z. A Cybernetic Model for Analytic Network Process. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Qingdao, China, 11–14 July 2010; Volume 4, pp. 1914–1919. [Google Scholar]
- Leal, J.E. AHP-Express: A Simplified Version of the Analytical Hierarchy Process Method. MethodsX 2020, 7, 100748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duleba, S. Introduction and Comparative Analysis of the Multi-Level Parsimonious AHP Methodology in a Public Transport Development Decision Problem. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2020, 73, 230–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Eckert, C.M.; Earl, C. A Review of Fuzzy AHP Methods for Decision-Making with Subjective Judgements. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 161, 113738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahdiyar, A.; Tabatabaee, S.; Durdyev, S.; Ismail, S.; Abdullah, A.; Wan Mohd Rani, W.N.M. A Prototype Decision Support System for Green Roof Type Selection: A Cybernetic Fuzzy ANP Method. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 48, 101532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ammarapala, V.; Chinda, T.; Pongsayaporn, P.; Ratanachot, W.; Punthutaecha, K.; Janmonta, K. Cross-Border Shipment Route Selection Utilizing Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2018, 40. [Google Scholar]
- Alshorafa, R.; Ergen, E. Determining the level of development for BIM implementation in large-scale projects: A multi-case study. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, 28, 397–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karakhan, A.A.; Gambatese, J.A. Integrating Worker Health and Safety into Sustainable Design and Construction: Designer and Constructor Perspectives. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucko, G.; Rojas, E.M. Research Validation: Challenges and Opportunities in the Construction Domain. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahdiyar, A.; Mohandes, S.R.; Durdyev, S.; Tabatabaee, S.; Ismail, S. Barriers to Green Roof Installation: An Integrated Fuzzy-Based MCDM Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
BOCR | Factors | Sub-Factors | Code | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Benefits | Technology | Detailed 3D simulation and visualisation | B1.1 | [23] |
Design error/clash detection | B1.2 | [19] | ||
Detection of unsafe areas at the construction site | B1.3 | [19] | ||
Energy modeling at the primary stages of the project | B1.4 | [24] | ||
Increased quantity take off/cost estimation accuracy | B1.5 | [36] | ||
Workflow Process | Improved project planning, scheduling and sequencing | B2.1 | [25] | |
Enhanced site management | B2.2 | [18,19] | ||
Refined/integrated project information and knowledge management | B2.3 | [27] | ||
Reduced rework and elimination of unbudgeted change | B2.4 | [19] | ||
Saved construction costs and potential delays | B2.5 | [27] | ||
People | Improved stakeholders’ understanding of the project scope | B3.1 | [18,21] | |
Facilitates project communication among stakeholders | B3.2 | [21,22] | ||
Opportunities | Decision-making | Improved construction communication through utilising BIM dimensions | O1.1 | [19,20] |
Supporting collaborative work within a multidisciplinary team | O1.2 | [24] | ||
Reduced conflicts in the project | O1.3 | [21] | ||
Improved labour productivity | O1.4 | [19] | ||
Enhanced engineering design quality | O1.5 | [19] | ||
Integrating LCA dimensions into the decision-making process | O1.6 | [24,37] | ||
Reduction in overall project time | O1.7 | [19] | ||
Reduced construction costs by minimizing the wastage of materials | O1.8 | [19,22] | ||
Sustainability performance | Advancing prefabrication practice | O2.1 | [22] | |
Decide on the energy-efficient building by conducting detailed energy analysis | O2.2 | [20] | ||
Decreasing global warming potential of building | O2.3 | [20] | ||
Achieve sustainable and lean construction practice | O2.4 | [27] | ||
Costs | Initial monetary issues | High capital cost | C1.1 | [27,29] |
Costs required to upgrade BIM operation hardware | C1.2 | [21,38] | ||
Costs/efforts required to purchase BIM software and link information from other sources | C1.3 | [21] | ||
Cost/efforts required for personnel training | C1.4 | [38] | ||
Lifecycle monetary issues | Costs/efforts required to maintain BIM models and central files | C2.1 | [21] | |
Costs/efforts required to create, annotate and refine project documentation | C2.2 | [21] | ||
Lack of information on ROI of BIM projects | C2.3 | [31,38] | ||
Risks | Data processing | Lack of software capability | R1.1 | [29] |
Inefficient data interoperability | R1.2 | [32] | ||
Model management difficulties | R1.3 | [29] | ||
Information security readjustment | R1.4 | [27,29] | ||
Standardisation | Inadequate project experience | R2.1 | [29] | |
Restructuring the organisation’s management process | R2.2 | [38] | ||
Lack of national standards, procedures and guidelines | R2.3 | [32,38] | ||
Unclear legal liability | R2.4 | [32,33] | ||
People | Insufficient top management support/commitment | R3.1 | [38] | |
Lack of experienced and skilled personnel | R3.2 | [29] | ||
Improper collaboration and coordination among stakeholders | R3.3 | [29] | ||
Unclarified responsibilities | R3.4 | [38] | ||
Inadequate stakeholders’ awareness and acceptance | R3.5 | [38,39] | ||
Increase in short-term workload | R3.6 | [29] | ||
Workflow transition difficulties | R3.7 | [29,38] |
Position | No. | Degree | Years of Experience | Participation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
IVFDM | FPAHP | ||||
Architect | 1 | MSc. | 5–10 | ✓ * | |
2 | Ph.D. | 10–15 | ✓ | ✓ | |
3 | Ph.D. | 5–10 | ✓ | ✓ | |
4 | Ph.D. | 10–15 | ✓ * | ||
5 | Ph.D. | 10–15 | ✓ | ✓ | |
6 | MSc. | 15–20 | ✓ | ||
7 | MSc. | 10–15 | ✓ | ||
8 | MSc. | 5–10 | ✓ | ✓ | |
Engineer | 1 | Ph.D. | 5–10 | ✓ | |
2 | Ph.D. | 10–15 | ✓* | ✓ | |
3 | MSc. | 10–15 | ✓ | ✓ | |
4 | MSc. | 15–20 | ✓ | ||
5 | Ph.D. | 10–15 | ✓ | ||
6 | Ph.D. | 5–10 | ✓ | ||
Developer | 1 | BSc. | 10–15 | ✓ | |
2 | MSc. | 10–15 | ✓ * | ✓ | |
3 | MSc. | 5–10 | ✓ | ✓ | |
4 | BSc. | 15–20 | ✓ |
Linguistic Variables | IVTFNs |
---|---|
Very low | ((0.1, 0.1); 0.1; (0.2, 0.25)) |
Low | ((0.15, 0.2); 0.3; (0.4, 0.45)) |
Medium | ((0.35, 0.4); 0.5; (0.6, 0.65)) |
High | ((0.55, 0.6); 0.7; (0.8, 0.85)) |
Very high | ((0.75, 0.8); 0.9; (0.9, 0.90)) |
Linguistic Variables | AHP Scale | FAHP Scale | |
---|---|---|---|
TFNs | Reciprocal TFNs | ||
Equally important | 1 | (,1,3) | (,1,3) |
Moderately more important | 3 | (1,3,5) | () |
Strongly more important | 5 | (3,5,7) | () |
Very strongly more important | 7 | (5,7,9) | () |
Extremely more important | 9 | (7,9,9) | () |
Category | Factors | Code | IVFDM | FPAHP | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fuzzy Weight | Defuzzification Value | Decision | Weight | Rank | |||
Benefits | Technology | B1.1 | (0.55,0.60;0.75;0.90,0.90) | 0.741 | Accept | 0.121 | 2 |
B1.2 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.091 | 6 | ||
B1.3 | (0.55,0.60;0.84;0.90,0.90) | 0.759 | Accept | 0.052 | 10 | ||
B1.4 | (0.35,0.40;0.81;0.90,0.90) | 0.673 | Accept | 0.097 | 5 | ||
B1.5 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.102 | 3 | ||
Workflow Process | B2.1 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.078 | 8 | |
B2.2 | (0.55,0.60;0.81;0.90,0.90) | 0.753 | Accept | 0.033 | 12 | ||
B2.3 | (0.35,0.40;0.75;0.90,0.90) | 0.661 | Accept | 0.101 | 4 | ||
B2.4 | (0.55,0.60;0.75;0.90,0.90) | 0.741 | Accept | 0.031 | 11 | ||
B2.5 | (0.35,0.40;0.77;0.90,0.90) | 0.665 | Accept | 0.085 | 7 | ||
People | B3.1 | (0.55,0.60;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.747 | Accept | 0.063 | 9 | |
B3.2 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.146 | 1 | ||
Opportunities | Decision-making | O1.1 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.062 | 9 |
O1.2 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.094 | 4 | ||
O1.3 | (0.55,0.60;0.87;0.90,0.90) | 0.764 | Accept | 0.039 | 11 | ||
O1.4 | (0.55,0.60;0.72;0.90,0.90) | 0.736 | Accept | 0.071 | 8 | ||
O1.5 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.086 | 7 | ||
O1.6 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.152 | 1 | ||
O1.7 | (0.55,0.60;0.81;0.90,0.90) | 0.753 | Accept | 0.093 | 5 | ||
O1.8 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.134 | 2 | ||
Sustainability performance | O2.1 | (0.35,0.40;0.75;0.90,0.90) | 0.661 | Accept | 0.117 | 3 | |
O2.2 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.091 | 6 | ||
O2.3 | (0.10,0.10;0.18;0.60,0.65) | 0.327 | Reject | - | - | ||
O2.4 | (0.35,0.40;0.75;0.90,0.90) | 0.661 | Accept | 0.061 | 10 | ||
Costs | Initial monetary issues | C1.1 | (0.35,0.40;.075;0.90,0.90) | 0.661 | Accept | 0.107 | 6 |
C1.2 | (0.55,0.60;0.75;0.90,0.90) | 0.741 | Accept | 0.163 | 5 | ||
C1.3 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.185 | 2 | ||
C1.4 | (0.35,0.40;0.84;0.90,0.90) | 0.679 | Accept | 0.198 | 1 | ||
Lifecycle monetary issues | C2.1 | (0.10,0.10;0.18;0.60,0.65) | 0.327 | Reject | - | - | |
C2.2 | (0.15,0.20;0.30;0.60,0.65) | 0.380 | Reject | - | - | ||
C2.3 | (0.35,0.40;0.81;0.90,0.90) | 0.673 | Accept | 0.171 | 4 | ||
C2.4 | (0.55,0.60;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.747 | - | 0.176 | 3 | ||
Risks | Data processing | R1.1 | (0.10,0.10;0.24;0.60,0.65) | 0.339 | Reject | - | - |
R1.2 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.070 | 9 | ||
R1.3 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.011 | 13 | ||
R1.4 | (0.55,0.60;0.72;0.90,0.90) | 0.736 | Accept | 0.012 | 12 | ||
Standardization | R2.1 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.088 | 5 | |
R2.2 | (0.35,0.40;0.81;0.90,0.90) | 0.673 | Accept | 0.087 | 6 | ||
R2.3 | (0.55,0.60;0.81;0.90,0.90) | 0.753 | Accept | 0.136 | 1 | ||
R2.4 | (0.55,0.60;0.87;0.90,0.90) | 0.764 | Accept | 0.077 | 7 | ||
People | R3.1 | (0.55,0.60;0.75;0.90,0.90) | 0.741 | Accept | 0.105 | 4 | |
R3.2 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.114 | 3 | ||
R3.3 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.010 | 14 | ||
R3.4 | (0.55,0.60;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.747 | Accept | 0.027 | 11 | ||
R3.5 | (0.55,0.60;0.75;0.90,0.90) | 0.741 | Accept | 0.127 | 2 | ||
R3.6 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.065 | 10 | ||
R3.7 | (0.35,0.40;0.78;0.90,0.90) | 0.667 | Accept | 0.071 | 8 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zakeri, S.M.H.; Tabatabaee, S.; Ismail, S.; Mahdiyar, A.; Wahab, M.H. Developing an MCDM Model for the Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks of BIM Adoption. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054035
Zakeri SMH, Tabatabaee S, Ismail S, Mahdiyar A, Wahab MH. Developing an MCDM Model for the Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks of BIM Adoption. Sustainability. 2023; 15(5):4035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054035
Chicago/Turabian StyleZakeri, Seyed Mohammad Hossein, Sanaz Tabatabaee, Syuhaida Ismail, Amir Mahdiyar, and Mohammad Hussaini Wahab. 2023. "Developing an MCDM Model for the Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks of BIM Adoption" Sustainability 15, no. 5: 4035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054035