A method for the efficient prioritization of infrastructure renewal projects

被引:32
作者
Karydas, DM
Gifun, JF
机构
[1] Tech Univ Eindhoven, Dept Technol Management Qual & Realiabil Engn, NL-5600 MB Eindhoven, Netherlands
[2] MIT, Dept Facil, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
关键词
project prioritization; facilities; infrastructure renewal; analytic hierarchy process; deliberation; consensus; analytic-deliberative decision making; multi-attribute utility theory;
D O I
10.1016/j.ress.2004.11.016
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
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. (C) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:84 / 99
页数:16
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]  
APOSTOLAKIS G, IN PRESS RISK ANAL
[2]   Deliberation: Integrating analytical results into environmental decisions involving multiple stakeholders [J].
Apostolakis, GE ;
Pickett, SE .
RISK ANALYSIS, 1998, 18 (05) :621-634
[3]  
BUFFERD AS, 2003, REPORT TREASURER YEA
[4]  
Goodwin P., 2000, DECISION ANAL MANAGE
[5]  
KAISER HH, 1999, CHARTING NEW COURSE, P12
[6]  
Keeney R.L., 1976, DECISIONS MULTIPLE O
[7]  
*NAT RES COUNC, 1996, UND RISK INF DEC DEM, P20
[8]  
Saaty TL., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation
[9]  
SIRIANNI VV, 2001, INFRASTRUCTURE RENEW
[10]  
SIRIANNI VV, 2004, US INTERVIEW V SIRIA