Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Composite indicator development using utility function and fuzzy theory

  • Special Issue Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Construction companies use composite indicators (CIs) to evaluate their overall project performance. However, the conventional methodology of CIs development causes indiscrimination, relative calibration, and redundancy. To address these problems, we propose a novel methodology that uses fuzzy theories. The proposed methodology includes a utility function for normalizing, a fuzzy measure for weighting, and a fuzzy integral for aggregating. We conducted a case study to assess the quality of the proposed methodology versus the alternative methodologies on 25 real projects of a construction company. The result showed that the measurement reliability of the proposed normalization method (1.96) is greater than that of the two different normalization methods (10.44 and 2.8, respectively). In addition, the measurement accuracy of the proposed aggregation method is greater than those of the four different aggregation methods. Therefore, our proposed methodology can more consistently and accurately help evaluate the overall project performance or success.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bai J, Yang X and Tao L (2011). Research on construction project process performance measurement. In: 2011 IEEE 18th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): Changchun, China, pp 1915–1918.

  • Cha H and Kim C (2011). Quantitative approach for project performance measurement on building construction in South Korea. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 15 (8): 1319–1328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu YC, Shyu JZ and Tzeng GH (2004). Fuzzy MCDM for evaluating the E-commerce strategy. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology 19 (1): 12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clivillé V, Berrah L and Mauris G (2007). Quantitative expression and aggregation of performance measurements based on the MACBETH multi-criteria method. International Journal of Production Economics 105 (1): 171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dainty A, Cheng MI and Moore D (2003). Redefining performance measures for construction project managers: An empirical evaluation. Construction Management and Economics 21 (2): 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Balteiro L and Romero C (2004). In search of a natural systems sustainability index. Ecological Economics 49 (3): 401–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebert U and Welsch H (2004). Meaningful environmental indices: A social choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47: 270–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esty DC, Levy MA, Srebotnjak T and de Sherbinin A (2005). 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy: New Haven, CT, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayek AR and Sun Z (2001). A fuzzy expert system for design performance prediction and evaluation. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 28 (1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayek AR and Oduba A (2005). Predicting industrial construction labor productivity using fuzzy expert systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 131 (8): 938–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenberg M (2003). Composite indicators of country performance: A critical assessment. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, OECD, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/405566708255.

  • Grabisch M (1996). The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 89 (3): 445–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand DJ (2004). Measurement Theory and Practice: The World Through Quantification. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs RP and Goddard M (2004). Measuring performance: An examination of composite performance indicators. Centre for Health Economics, Technical Paper Series 29.

  • Kumaraswamy MM and Thorpe A (1996). Systematizing construction project evaluations. Journal of Management in Engineering 12 (1): 34–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landy F and Farr J (1983). The Measurement of Work Performance: Methods, Theory, and Applications. Academic Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauras M, Marques G and Gourc D (2010). Towards a multi-dimensional project performance measurement system. Decision Support Systems 48 (2): 342–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liginlal D and Ow T (2006). Modeling attitude to risk in human decision processes: An application of fuzzy measures. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157 (23): 3040–3054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lun G, Holzer D, Tappeiner G and Tappeiner U (2006). The stability of rankings derived from composite indicators: Analysis of the ‘Il Sole 24 Ore’ quality of life report. Social Indicators Research 77 (2): 307–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques G, Gourc D and Lauras M (2010). Multi-criteria performance analysis for decision making in project management. International Journal of Project Management 29 (8): 1057–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A and Tarantola S (2005). Tools for Composite Indicators Building. European Commission-Joint Research Centre: Ispra, VA, Italy.

  • OECD and European Commission-Joint Research Centre (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and user Guide. OECD Publishing: Paris, France.

  • Park M, Kim N, Lee H, Ahn C and Lee K (2009). Construction project performance management using BSC and data warehouse. Journal of Korean Institute of Construction Engineering and Management 10 (2): 14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli A (2006). Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Social Indicators Research 81 (1): 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saisana M and Tarantola S (2002). State-of-the-art Report on Current Methodologies and Practices for Composite Indicator Development. European Commission-Joint Research Centre: Ispra, VA, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinha BK and Shah KR (2003). On some aspects of data integration techniques with environmental applications. Environmetrics 14 (4): 409–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng G, Ouyang Y, Lin C and Chen C (2005). Hierarchical MADM with fuzzy integral for evaluating enterprise intranet web sites. Information Sciences 169 (3–4): 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon KP and Hwang CL (1995). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou P, Ang BW and Poh KL (2006). Comparing aggregating methods for constructing the composite environmental index: An objective measure. Ecological Economics 59 (3): 305–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou P and Ang W (2009). Comparing MCDA aggregation methods in constructing composite indicators using the Shannon-Spearman measure. Social Indicators Research 94 (1): 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MEST) (2012-0005376). The present research has been conducted by the Research Grant of Kwangwoon University in 2012.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kwangwoon University, Seoul, South Korea

    S-K Lee & J-H Yu

Authors
  1. S-K Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J-H Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, SK., Yu, JH. Composite indicator development using utility function and fuzzy theory. J Oper Res Soc 64, 1279–1290 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.15

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.15

Keywords

Search

Navigation