Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 689–707 | Cite as

Project Delivery System Selection with Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set Group Decision-Making Method

  • Xiaowei An
  • Zhuofu Wang
  • Huimin LiEmail author
  • Jiyong Ding


A project delivery system (PDS) is the relationship and contractual structure between the owner and the contractors of a construction project; this system defines the roles and responsibilities of the participates involved in the project. Selecting a suitable PDS is one of the keys to achieve a construction project’s goals. PDS selection is a typical multi-attribute decision making problem that can be effectively solved by group decision making. Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set (IVIFS) is used to solve complex decision making problems, especially multi-attribute group decision making problems, under uncertain circumstances. In this paper, a group decision making model for PDS selection is proposed using IVIFS theory as basis. In order to improve the reliability of decision making, a new decision maker weight determination method is introduced based on information utility level. Finally, the validity of the method is verified through a case study. This method can aid project owners in PDS selection.


Construction project Project delivery system Selection Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set Group decision making 



The authors acknowledge with gratitude the National Natural Science Foundation of China (#Project Nos. 71302191, 71402045), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (#Project Nos. 2016B46614, 2014B01314) and Foundation for Distinguished Young Talents in Higher Education of Henan (Humanities and Social Sciences), China (No. 2017-cxrc- 023). This study would not have been possible without their financial support.


  1. Al-Harbi AS (2001) Application of the AHP in project management. Int J Proj Manag 19(1):19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alhazmi T, Mccaffer R (2000) Project procurement system selection model. J Constr Eng Manag 126(3):176–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Set Syst 20(1):87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atanassov KT, Gargov G (1989) Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Set Syst 31(3):343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boran FE (2011) An integrated intuitionistic fuzzy multicriteria decision making method for facility location selection. Math Comput Appl 16(2):487–496Google Scholar
  6. Butt MA, Akram M (2016) A novel fuzzy decision-making system for CPU scheduling algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 27(7):1927–1939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Büyüközkan G, Güleryüz S (2016) A new integrated intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making approach for product development partner selection. Comput Ind Eng 102:383–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan APC, Yung EHK, Lam PTI et al (2001) Application of Delphi method in selection of procurement systems for construction projects. Constr Manag Econ 19(7):699–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen SM, Huang ZC (2017) Multiattribute decision making based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy values and linear programming methodology. Inf Sci 381:341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen TY, Li CH (2010) Determining objective weights with intuitionistic fuzzy entropy measures: a comparative analysis. Inf Sci 180(21):4207–4222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen ZP, Yang W (2011) A new multiple attribute group decision making method in intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Appl Math Model 35(9):4424–4437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen YQ, Liu JY, Li B, Lin B (2011) Project delivery system selection of construction projects in china. Expert Syst Appl 38(5):5456–5462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen SM, Cheng SH, Tsai WH (2016) Multiple attribute group decision making based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators and transformation techniques of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy values. Inf Sci 367–368:418–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Choi TN, Chan DW, Chan AP (2011) Perceived benefits of applying pay for safety scheme (PFSS) in construction—a factor analysis approach. Saf Sci 49(6):813–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dai QT, Molenaar KR (2015) Risk-based project delivery selection model for highway design and construction. J Constr Eng Manag 141(12):04015041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dai QT, Molenaar KR, Alarcön LF (2016) A hybrid cross-impact approach to predicting cost variance of project delivery decisions for highways. J Infrastruct Syst 22(1):04015017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Das S, Dutta B, Guha D (2016) Weight computation of criteria in a decision-making problem by knowledge measure with intuitionistic fuzzy set and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set. Soft Comput 20(9):3421–3442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Düğenci M (2016) A new distance measure for interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application to group decision making problems with incomplete weights information. Appl Soft Comput 41:120–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guo K, Song Q (2014) On the entropy for Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets: an interpretation from the perspective of amount of knowledge. Appl Soft Comput 24:328–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gupta P, Mehlawat MK, Grover N (2016) Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making with an application to plant location selection based on a new extended VIKOR method. Inf Sci 370–371:184–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ho CTB, Wu DD (2009) Online banking performance evaluation using data envelopment analysis and principal component analysis. Comput Oper Res 36(6):1835–1842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hong WM, Liu HM, Wang ZF (2010) Decision-making of project delivery system based on entropy and fuzzy set. Sci Technol Manag Res 3:122–125 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  23. Hwang CL, Lin MJ (1987) Group decision making under multiple criteria. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hwang C, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications, a state of the art survey. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ibbs W, Chih Y, Hartmann A (2011) Alternative methods for choosing an appropriate project delivery system (PDS). Facilities 29(13/14):527–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumaraswamy MM, Dissanayaka SM (2001) Developing a decision support system for building project procurement. Build Environ 36(3):337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li HM, Qin KL, Li P (2015) Selection of project delivery approach with unascertained model. Kybernetes 44(2):238–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ling FYY, Kerh SH (2004) Comparing the performance of design-build and design-bid-build building projects in Singapore. Arch Sci Rev 47(2):163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ling FYY, Liu M (2004) Using neural network to predict performance of design-build projects in Singapore. Build Environ 39(10):1263–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu PD (2017) Multiple attribute group decision making method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy power Heronian aggregation operators. Comput Ind Eng 108:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu P, Zhang X (2011) Research on the supplier selection of a supply chain based on entropy weight and improved ELECTRE-III method. Int J Prod Res 49(3):637–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu B, Huo T, Shen Q, Yang Z, Meng J, Xue B (2015) Which owner characteristics are key factors affecting project delivery system decision making? Empirical analysis based on the rough set theory. J Manag Eng 31(4):05014018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luu DT, Ng ST, Chen SE, Jefferies M (2006) A strategy for evaluating a fuzzy case-based construction procurement selection system. Adv Eng Softw 37(3):159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mafakheri F, Dai L, Slezak D, Nasiri F (2007) Project delivery system selection under uncertainty multi-criteria multilevel decision aid model. J Manag Eng 23(4):200–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mahdi IM, Alreshaid K (2005) Decision support system for selecting the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Int J Proj Manag 23(7):564–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moon HS, Cho KM, Hong TH, Hyun CT (2011) Selection model for delivery methods for multifamily-housing construction projects. J Manag Eng 27(2):106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ng ST, Luu DT, Chen SE, Lam KC (2002) Fuzzy membership functions of procurement selection criteria. Constr Manag Econ 20(3):285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nguyen H (2016) A new interval-valued knowledge measure for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and application in decision making. Expert Syst Appl 56:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ojiako U, Johansen E, Greenwood D (2008) A qualitative re-construction of project measurement criteria. Ind Manag Data Syst 108(3):405–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oyetunji AA, Anderson SD (2006) Relative effectiveness of project delivery and contract strategies. J Constr Eng Manag 132(1):3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Qiang M, Wen Q, Jiang H, Yuan S (2015) Factors governing construction project delivery selection: a content analysis. Int J Proj Manag 33(8):1780–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Qiu JD, Li L (2017) A new approach for multiple attribute group decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information. Appl Soft Comput 61:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shane JS, Bogus SM, Molenaar KR (2013) Municipal water/wastewater project delivery performance comparison. J Manag Eng 29(3):251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wan SP, Dong JY (2015) Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy mathematical programming method for hybrid multi-criteria group decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy truth degrees. Inform Fusion 26:49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang ZF, Yang GS, Hong WM (2010) Construction engineering transaction theory and transaction model. China Water & Power Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  46. Wang ZF, Wang DG, Yang GS, Ding JY (2013) Selection of construction project delivery method based on value-added analysis: a theoretical framework. Paper presented at the international conference on construction and real estate management (ICCREM2013), Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang LY, An XW, Li HM (2014) Applying fuzzy set model for selecting project delivery system. Paper presented at the international conference on simulation and modeling methodologies, technologies and applications (SMTA2014), Sanya, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  48. Wei GW (2011) Gray relational analysis method for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Expert Syst Appl 38(9):671–677Google Scholar
  49. Wei CP, Wang P, Zhang YZ (2011) Entropy, similarity measure of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications. Inf Sci 181(19):4273–4286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xu ZS (2007a) Methods for aggregating interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to decision making. Control Decis 22(2):215–219Google Scholar
  51. Xu ZS (2007b) Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(6):1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Xu JP, Shen F (2014) A new outranking choice method for group decision making under Atanassov’s interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Knowl-Based Syst 70:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xu ZS, Yager RR (2009) Intuitionistic and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations and their measures of similarity for the evaluation of agreement within a group. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 8(2):123–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yager RR (2004) OWA aggregation over a continuous interval argument with applications to decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 34(5):1952–1963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yu DJ, Wu YY, Lu T (2012) Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized operators and their application in group decision making. Knowl-Based Syst 30(6):57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zafar F, Akram M (2017) A novel decision-making method based on rough fuzzy information. Int J Fuzzy Syst 3:1–15Google Scholar
  57. Zhang FW, Xu SH (2016) Multiple attribute group decision making method based on utility theory under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Group Decis Negot 25:1261–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaowei An
    • 1
  • Zhuofu Wang
    • 1
  • Huimin Li
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Jiyong Ding
    • 1
  1. 1.Business SchoolHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Construction Engineering and ManagementNorth China University of Water Resources and Electric PowerZhengzhouChina
  3. 3.Henan Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation and TreatmentZhengzhouChina
  4. 4.Environment Governance and Ecological Restoration Academician Workstation of Henan ProvinceZhengzhouChina

Personalised recommendations