An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for the Assessment of Public Private Partnerships in Transportation Projects
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Public–private partnership (PPP) infrastructure projects have attracted attention over the past few years. In this regard, the selection of private partners is an integral decision to ensure its success. The selection process needs to identify, scrutinize, and pre-qualify potential private partners that sustain the greatest potential in delivering the designated public–private partnership projects. To this end, this research paper proposes an integrated multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model for the purpose of selection of the best private partners in PPP projects. The developed model (HYBD_MCDM) is conceptualized based on two tiers of multi-criteria decision making. In the first tier, the fuzzy analytical network process (FANP) is exploited to scrutinize the relative importance of the priorities of the selection criteria of private partners. In this respect, the PPP selection criteria are categorized as safety, environmental, technical, financial, political policy, and managerial. In the second tier, a set of seven multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) algorithms is leveraged to determine the best private partners to deliver PPP projects. These algorithms comprise the combined compromise solution (CoCoSo), simple weighted sum product (WISP), measurement alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS), combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS), weighted aggregate sum product assessment (WASPAS), technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), and FANP. Thereafter, the Copeland algorithm is deployed to amalgamate the obtained rankings from the seven MCDM algorithms. Four real-world case studies are analyzed to test the implementation and applicability of the developed integrated model. The results indicate that varying levels of importance were exhibited among the managerial, political, and safety and environmental criteria based on the nature of the infrastructure projects. Additionally, the financial and technical criteria were appended as the most important criteria across the different infrastructure projects. It can be argued that the developed model can guide executives of governments to appraise their partner’s ability to achieve their strategic objectives. It also sheds light on prospective private partners’ strengths, weaknesses, and capacities in an attempt to neutralize threats and exploit opportunities offered by today’s construction business market.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle