Fuzzy Logic Analysis of the Build, Capacity Build and Transfer (B-CB-T) Modality for Urban Water Supply Service Delivery in Ethiopia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- risk identification,
- policy definition,
- risk sharing and allocation,
- risk analysis, and
- risk minimization and response planning.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Build, Capacity Build and Transfer (B-CB-T)
2.2. Fuzzy Logic
- V: external accounability
- X: Internal accountability
- Y: Operation and maintenance
- Z: Financial management
3. Results
Risk Analysis of External Accountability
- relationships with users and the board,
- addressing complaints,
- a clear mandate
- Water balance–unaccounted-for water (UAW),
- Asset management and new connections,
- Continuity of service.
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- UN Sustainable Development Goal 6. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg6 (accessed on 4 May 2019).
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Beall, J.; Fox, S. Urban Poverty and Development in the 21st Century: Towards an Inclusive and Sustainable World; Oxfam Research Report; Oxfam GB: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Güneralp, B.; Lwasa, S.; Masundire, H.; Parnell, S.; Seto, K.C. Urbanization in Africa: Challenges and opportunities. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 13, 015002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hedrick-Wong, Y.; Angelopulo, G. The Challenges of Urbanization in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Tale of Three Cities. MasterCard Worldwide Insights 3Q 2011. Available online: https://www1.mastercard.com/content/intelligence/en/research/reports/2011/the-challenges-of-urbanization-in-sub-saharan-africa-a-tale-of-three-cities.html (accessed on 15 April 2019).
- Hove, M.; Ngwerume, E.T.; Muchemwa, C. The Urban Crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Threat to Human Security and Sustainable Development. Stab. Int. J. Secur. Dev. 2013, 2, Art. 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özdogan, I.D.; Birgönül, M.T. A decision support framework for project sponsors in the planning stage of build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2000, 18, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, C.; Smith, A.J. Privatized Infrastructure—The BOT Approach; Thomas Telford: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- AL-Azemi, K.; Bhamra, R. Risk management for build, operate and transfer (BOT) projects in Kuwait. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2014, 20, 415–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, D.H.T.; Hampson, K.D. Procurement Strategies: A Relationship Based Approach; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- McDermott, P. Strategic Issues in Construction in Procurement Systems—A Guide to Best Practice in Construction; Rowlinson, S., McDermott, P., Eds.; E & FN Spon: London, UK, 1999; pp. 3–26. [Google Scholar]
- Akbiyikli, R.; Eaton, R. Comparison of PFI, BOT, BOO, and BOOT Procurement Routes for Infrastructure Construction Projects. 2004, p. 506. Available online: https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB16757.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2019).
- Kangari, R. Business failure in construction industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1988, 114, 172–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodward, D.G. Use of sensitivity analysis in build-operate-transfer project evaluation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1995, 13, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Confoy, B.; Love, P.E.D.; Wood, B.M.; Picken, D.H. Build-Own-Operate—The Procurement of Correctional Services in Profitable Partnering in Construction Procurement. In CIB W92 and CIB TG 23 Joint Symposium; Ogunlana, S.O., Ed.; E & FN Spon: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Tah, J.H.M.; Thorpe, A.; McCaffer, R. Contractor project risks contingency allocation using linguistic approximation. Comput. Syst. Eng. 1993, 4, 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tah, J.H.M.; Carr, V. A proposal for construction project risk assessment using fuzzy logic. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2000, 18, 491–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wirba, E.N.; Tah, J.H.M.; Howes, R. Risk interdependencies and natural language computations. J. Eng. Constr. Architect. Manag. 1996, 3, 251–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, H.N.; Choi, H.H.; Kim, Y.B. A risk assessment methodology for incorporating uncertainties using fuzzy logic concepts. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2002, 78, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyons, T.; Skitmore, M. Project risk management in the Queensland engineering construction industry: A survey. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2004, 22, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dikmen, I.; Birgonul, T.; Ozorhon, B.; Sapci, N.E. Using analytic network process to assess business failure risks of construction firms. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2010, 17, 369–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paek, J.H.; Lee, Y.W.; Ock, J.H. Pricing construction risk: Fuzzy logic set application. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1993, 119, 743–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezakhani, P. A review of fuzzy logic risk assessment models for construction projects. Slovak J. Civ. Eng. 2012, 20, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roghanian, E.; Mojibian, F. Using fuzzy logic FMEA and fuzzy logic logic in project risk management. Iran. J. Manag. Stud. 2015, 8, 373–395. [Google Scholar]
- Sotoodeh Gohar, A.; Khanzadi, M.; Farmani, M. Identifying and Evaluating Risks of Construction Projects in Fuzzy logic Environment: A Case Study in Iranian Construction Industry. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2012, 5, 3593–3602. [Google Scholar]
- Zeng, J.; An, M.; Smith, N.J. Application of a fuzzy logic based decision making methodology to construction project risk assessment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, 25, 589–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.M.; Elhag, T.M. A fuzzy logic group decision making approach for bridge risk assessment. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2007, 53, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nieto, A.; Ruz-Vila, F. A fuzzy logic approach to construction project risk assessment. Int. J. Proj. Mnag. 2011, 29, 220–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, H.H.; Cho, H.N.; Seo, J.W. Risk assessment methodology for underground construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kangari, R.; Riggs, L.S. Construction risk assessment by linguistics. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1989, 36, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moorthi, P.V.P.; Singh, A.P.; Agnivesh, P. Regulation of water resources systems using fuzzy logic: A case study of Amaravathi dam. Appl. Water Sci. 2018, 8, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prakasos, S.; Notodarmarjo, S. Analysis of drinking water supply using fuzzy logic and analytic hierarchy process AHP. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 147, 04002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Josephs-Afoko, D.; Godfrey, S.; Campos, L. Assessing the performance and robustness of the UNICEF model for groundwater exploration in Ethiopia through application of the analytic hierarchy process, logistic regression and artificial neural networks. Water SA J. 2018, 44, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
A | BOT | BCBT |
---|---|---|
CAPEX and OPEX Financing | Responsibility of the private entity to secure CAPEX (usually through commercial debt) and recover OPEX (through water revenue streams). Profit margins regulate the commercial strategy of the private entity in providing services. | CAPEX is channeled through a national water revolving fund and lent to the Town Water Utilities (TWU) on soft concessional rates. OPEX are generated by water sales by the water utility. There is no interference by the private sector in the utility’s commercial strategy. |
Asset Ownership | Concession from (public) administration to the private sector entity. The assets are transferred to the public administration at the end of the concession agreement, without any additional remuneration of the private entity involved. The risk associated in the concessional arrangement is related to possible overexploitation of infrastructure to maximize the private sector entity’s profit. | Ownership remains with the public sector (water utility). The private sector supports the utility to maximize its efficiency and to properly maintain the assets. |
Water Revenue Stream | Within the concessional arrangement, a service charge is usually applied to the water utility (for the private sector to recover the investment and operation costs). Alternative user fees are directly collected by the private operator. In the absence of a strong regulatory framework and stable market, there is a significant risk of overcharging water costs. | Water fees are directly collected by the utility from users without any interference from the private sector. The private sector is supporting the utility to revise and improve existing business plans towards cost-effectiveness and credit-worthiness. |
Skills Transfer from Private to Public Operators | Limited unless properly stipulated in the concessional agreement. | On-the-job process, starting during the construction phase, whereby the private sector provides systematic support to the utility in developing required competencies. |
Performance of the Private Sector Entity | Main risk associated with the BOT. The performance of the private sector operator is strongly driven by its commitment to recover the investment. | Regulated by a performance-based contract against KPIs and assessed over a 12 month period. |
Company Risk | Project Risk | |
---|---|---|
LEVEL 1 | External Accountability | Relationship with users and board |
Capacity of addressing users’ complaints | ||
Roles and Mandates | ||
Internal Accountability | Organizational structure | |
Trained human resources | ||
Clear division of roles | ||
LEVEL 2 | Operation and Maintenance | Water balance (unaccounted for water/non-revenue water) |
Assets Management and new connections | ||
Continuity of service | ||
Financial Management | Setting service standards | |
Maximizing the efficiency of service delivery | ||
Maximizing the source of revenues |
Fuzzy Logic | Variable | and | Variable | and | Variable | External Accountability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IF | Addressing complaint is LOW | Clear mandate is HIGH | Relationship with users and board is LOW | |||
THEN | External accountability is HIGH | |||||
IF | Addressing complaint is HIGH | Relationship with users and board is LOW | Clear mandate is HIGH | |||
THEN | External accountability is MEDIUM | |||||
IF | Addressing complaint is MEDIUM | Clear mandate is MEDIUM | Relationship with users and board is MEDIUM | |||
THEN | External accountability is LOW |
© 2019 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Godfrey, S.; Asmare, G.; Gossa, T.; Paba, M. Fuzzy Logic Analysis of the Build, Capacity Build and Transfer (B-CB-T) Modality for Urban Water Supply Service Delivery in Ethiopia. Water 2019, 11, 979. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050979
Godfrey S, Asmare G, Gossa T, Paba M. Fuzzy Logic Analysis of the Build, Capacity Build and Transfer (B-CB-T) Modality for Urban Water Supply Service Delivery in Ethiopia. Water. 2019; 11(5):979. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050979
Chicago/Turabian StyleGodfrey, Samuel, Getachew Asmare, Tamene Gossa, and Michele Paba. 2019. "Fuzzy Logic Analysis of the Build, Capacity Build and Transfer (B-CB-T) Modality for Urban Water Supply Service Delivery in Ethiopia" Water 11, no. 5: 979. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050979
APA StyleGodfrey, S., Asmare, G., Gossa, T., & Paba, M. (2019). Fuzzy Logic Analysis of the Build, Capacity Build and Transfer (B-CB-T) Modality for Urban Water Supply Service Delivery in Ethiopia. Water, 11(5), 979. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050979