Advances in Engineering Software 34 (2003) 429–438

www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft

A case-based procurement advisory system for construction

Duc Thanh Luua,*, S. Thomas Ngb, Swee Eng Chena
a
School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, Taiwan, ROC
Received 5 June 2002; revised 14 February 2003; accepted 21 February 2003

Abstract
The selection and use of an appropriate procurement system are fundamental to the success of a construction project. However, the
procurement selection process involves the analysis of complex and dynamic criteria such as cost certainty, time certainty, speed, flexibility,
etc. Procurement selection is, therefore, plagued with uncertainty and vagueness that is difficult to be represented by a generalized set of
rules. In reality, decisions in procurement selection are usually derived from intuition and past experience. Case-based reasoning (CBR)
appears to be an appropriate approach to meet the requirements of the procurement selection process because of the value of experiential
knowledge. This paper reviews the practicality and suitability of a CBR approach for procurement selection through the development of a
prototype case-based procurement advisory system. In this prototype system, procurement selection cases are represented by a set of
attributes elicited from experienced procurement experts. The system is powered by a fuzzy similarity retrieval mechanism, which gives a
greater accuracy than the normal similarity retrieval process. The results indicate that the CBR approach can suitably model the
characteristics of construction procurement selection, and provide an indication of potential outcomes to any apparently suitable procurement
methods.
q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Construction procurement; Procurement selection; Case-based reasoning; Fuzzy similarity retrieval

1. Introduction process [12], multi-criteria/multi-screening [13], discrimi-

A widespread dissatisfaction of clients with the outcomes
of construction projects has prompted to the development
and use of alternative procurement approaches. While an
appropriate procurement system may enhance the prob-
ability of project success [1 – 3], some decision-makers may
encounter difficulties in ascertaining the suitability of
various alternative procurement approaches, as it is virtually
impossible for them to capture a diverse continuum of
procurement options, client’s characteristics and needs,
project characteristics, and external environments through
their own experiences of prior projects [4].
Over the last two decades, many procurement selection
techniques have been developed to assist decision-makers in
reaching more informed decisions on procurement selec-
tion. For instance, the procurement path decision chart [5],
procurement rating [6], multi-attribute utility approach
[7 – 10], multi-variate analysis [11], analytical hierarchical
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 61-2-4921-5771; fax: þ61-2-4921-6913.
E-mail address: duc.luu@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au (D.T. Luu).
0965-9978/03/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0965-9978(03)00043-7
nant analysis [7] and expert system (e.g. ELSIE) [14].
Despite the structural rigor of these approaches, they fail to
provide an early indication of potential outcomes should a
particular procurement approach be selected for a project.
To support decision-makers in selecting an appropriate
procurement method, the following principles are critical:
† Adequately and accurately accounting for various
characteristics, requirements and conditions unique to a
client, project and external environment [4,15] so that the
success of the project is not the result of a mere chance
but direct and guaranteed contribution of the derived
procurement system [16].
† Clearly addressing the implicit interrelationships of
procurement selection criteria (PSC) that describe the
distinctive characteristics of the client, project and
external environment [17 – 19].
† Providing a procurement method solution that truly
reflects industry practice, i.e. actual procurement systems
used by the construction industry, rather than theoreti-
cally driven, arbitrary (and apparently inaccurate)
430 D.T. Luu et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 34 (2003) 429–438
contingency-based systems, the divisions between which
are being blurred by developing the best practice [20].
† Providing users with confidence in adopting the derived
solution through the provision of likely outcomes.
Ward et al. [21] and Masterman [22] asserted that
procurement selection decisions are realistically founded on
experiences of previous similar examples, which are
coupled with intuitive evaluations to achieve the distinctive
requirements of the current situation. As a method of
solving a current situation by analogizing the solutions to
previous similar problems [23], case-based reasoning
(CBR) approaches draw on a repository of outcomes on
previous procurement experiences. Furthermore, the con-
cept of nearest neighbor matching (i.e. rather than exact
match) in CBR is suitable for domains with complicated
interrelationships between problem descriptors [24,25].
Aamodt and Plaza [26] describe CBR as a paradigm that
is similar to the way human beings adopt in problem
solving.
In this paper, the processes involved in selecting a
suitable procurement system are first dissected, and a
conceptual framework that mimics the decision processes
with regards to the CBR concept is proposed. The design of
a prototype Case-based Procurement Advisory System for
construction (CPAS) is then elucidated. The practicality of
the prototype system is illustrated through a practical
construction procurement example, and finally the results of
validation are revealed to establish the value of CPAS for
procurement selection decision support.
2. Procurement selection processes
A review of relevant literature and semi-structured
interviews were carried out to encapsulate the mechanism
of procurement selection in practice. The interviews were
conducted in Australia with managers of four local
governmental and one major private client organizations.
The results of these activities confirmed the need for
establishing a list of PSC before various procurement
options were evaluated. These PSC should reflect the
characteristics and requirements of the client, project and
external environment [10,4]. According to Ng et al. [15],
commonly used PSC are fuzzy in nature, and the fuzziness
of these PSC could have significant effects on procurement
evaluation and selection. It is, therefore, necessary to
identify and incorporate the linguistic classifications that
represent the fuzzy characteristics of fuzzy PSC into the
procurement selection process. A list of fuzzy PSC and their
linguistic classifications can be found in Ref. [27]. The
interviewees also suggested assigning importance of
weighting to each PSC to reflect its priority.
Based on the selected PSC, their linguistic classifications
and importance of weightings for the new project, the
decision-makers would recall the procurement method
Fig. 1. Processes in procurement selection.
(e.g. construction only) used in a past project(s) that closely
resembles the current one as well as the degree of success of
the procurement method adopted. Decision-makers would
then compare the procurement approach recalled with other
available procurement options to determine the level of
appropriateness of the solution, and this could be done by
measuring the gap between the recalled procurement
method with each of the other available procurement
approaches. The one with the smallest gap would be
considered the most appropriate and therefore, selected
(Fig. 1).
The degree of success of the procurement method
adopted in the recalled project would also be examined.
Depending upon how successful the historic project(s) is,
some modifications to the previous decision might be
needed to meet the dominant requirements, and/or improve
the chance of success of the new project (e.g. to change from
a stringent design and build to a design, novate and build
method).
3. Framework of case-based procurement selection
model
A CBR procedure can be developed to support the
procurement selection process and a conceptual framework
to drive the development of a CPAS for construction is
shown in Fig. 2. The framework consists of three key
modules, i.e. input, selection, and output.
The Input module provides users with an interface for
submitting the necessary data. The users have to input data
pertinent to the linguistic classification and importance of
weighting of each PSC. Linguistic classifications (such as
high flexibility, low complexity, medium quality, etc.) that
best describe the specified characteristics and requirements
of clients, projects and external environments should be
 D.T. Luu et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 34 (2003) 429–438 431

Fig. 2. Conceptual framework of the CPAS.

established by the users. The assignment of appropriate
linguistic classifications calls on the experience of the users.
Predefined values that replicate the linguistic classifications
of fuzzy PSC, such as low certainty, high speed, etc. are
presented to the users in accordance with the recommen-
dation of Ng et al. [27].
Depending on the weightings and linguistic classifications
entered, similar cases are retrieved by the selection module.
The retrieval process is performed through a fuzzy similarity
retrieval mechanism. Such a mechanism can best encapsulate
the interrelationships between various linguistic PSC, and
hence ensure the retrieval of the most appropriate procure-
ment system for a new project. The procurement system
adopted in the most similar historic case (solution) and
the degree of success of that project (outcome) are provided
to the users for consideration. When the users are convinced
that the case selected is comparable to the current case, and
that the solution and outcome are acceptable, they can apply
the previous solution to the new project. Otherwise, the users
might have to adapt the case to suit the distinctive
characteristics of the new project.
The hypothetically ideal solution is reported to the users
through the output module. All the data entered by the users
including the PSC, linguistic classifications and importance
weightings are also presented to the users for checking. The
details of the new case and the adopted or adapted
solution(s) are stored in the case-base for future reference
and retrieval.
432 D.T. Luu et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 34 (2003) 429–438

Fig. 3. Representation of cases in ARTpEnterprise.

4. An overview of the case-based procurement advisor costs, greater cost and time certainty, shorter procurement
duration, better quality, more effective and efficient
As an initial step to establish the suitability of CBR decision-making and communication, and minimization of
approaches for procurement selection, the conceptual disputes [4]. Therefore, these factors constitute the outcome
framework was developed into a prototype CPAS using a part of a case. Both successful and unsuccessful construc-
CBR shell—ARTpEnterprisee version 10. tion projects are recorded in the case-base of CPAS.
The case attributes in CPAS include those of the
4.1. Case representation symbolic and linguistic types. Symbolic attributes are
expressed by terms with unambiguous meanings. There
Aamodt and Plaza [26] pointed out that a good CBR are no implied logical relationships among the values of
system lies with a clear representation of the cases and an these attributes. An example of this is the attribute ‘time
appropriate structure for describing their contents. Like certainty’, which can be represented by Boolean values (i.e.
other CBR systems, cases in the procurement advisory yes or no). Linguistic attributes, on the other hand, are fuzzy
system consist of three main components: problem, solution linguistic variables with implied logical relationships
and outcome (Fig. 3). The problem part is represented by a
Table 1
collection of PSC. Table 1 highlights the details of the nine
Characteristics of case attributes
most commonly used PSC, namely time certainty, cost
certainty, speed, flexibility, responsibility, complexity, price Attributes Data type Domain values
competition, risk allocation and quality.
The solution part contains information relevant to the Time certainty Symbolic Yes; no
Cost certainty Symbolic Yes; no
procurement system used in a past construction project and
Speed Linguistic High; medium; low
its sub-managerial systems, including tendering method and Flexibility Linguistic High; medium; low
contractual arrangement. As for the outcome part of a case, Responsibility Linguistic High; medium; low
feedback detailing the degree of success of the past project Complexity Linguistic High; medium; low
is provided. The degree of success of a construction project Price competition Linguistic High; medium; low
Risk allocation Linguistic High; medium; low
is measured by the level of client’s satisfaction on critical
Quality Linguistic Prestige; good; basic
success factors such as reduction in capital and lifecycle
 D.T. Luu et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 34 (2003) 429–438 433

among domain values. A sample attribute of this kind is the

‘speed of project’, which has the values of high, medium or
low [27]. For this type of data, it is essential to establish the
actual relationships between the values of its definition
domain, therefore, the fuzzy membership functions for these
attributes must be derived.
In ARTpEnterprise, case attributes are represented as a
flat list. This representation structure evades the requirement
for exploring deeply into the interrelationships between the Fig. 4. Similarity of two fuzzy linguistic variables xi and yi :
case attributes as in the case when case attributes are
represented hierarchically.
have been derived in a previous study [27]. Based on the
4.2. Indexing and retrieval area ratio approach and the established fuzzy membership
functions, the similarity scores of linguistic variables are
In deciding a suitable indexing and retrieval mechanism computed, and results are shown in Table 2. As can be seen,
for CPAS, three main considerations were taken into using ‘high speed’ and ‘medium speed’ for the new and
account—a combination of PSC, distinctive linguistic historic cases, respectively, as an example, a similarity score
classifications, and importance of weighting for each PSC. of 0.194 is derived. As for a comparison between ‘high
In the light of these considerations, a special kind of quality’ and ‘low quality’ for the new and historic cases,
similarity retrieval mechanism called fuzzy similarity respectively, a similarity score of 0.086 is derived.
retrieval was adopted, whereby a similarity score between Since cases in the procurement advisory system are
two cases is computed in accordance with the following indexed on a checklist basis, during the case retrieval
formula: process, the fuzzy similarity retrieval mechanism recur-
X sively calculates the similarity score between each historic
similarityðT; SÞ ¼ f ðTi ; Si Þwi £ 100 case stored in the case-base and the current project. Once the
similarity scores are computed for all the cases in the case-
where
base, they are rank-ordered, and the five cases with the
highest similarity scores are presented to the users for
T ¼ target case
S ¼ stored case
n ¼ number of attributes in each case Table 2
Similarity functions of case attributes
i ¼ an individual attribute from 1 to n
w ¼ importance weightings of attribute i PSC Stored case Presented case
f ¼ similarity function for attribute i in cases T and S
High Medium Low
Two types of similarity functions ðf Þ are available within
Speed High 1 0.194 0.039
the fuzzy similarity retrieval mechanism, one designated for
Medium 0.194 1 0.335
symbolic attributes and the other specific to linguistic ones. Low 0.039 0.335 1
The similarity function for symbolic attributes is similar to
Flexibility High 1 0.448 0.0023
that of a usual nearest neighbor retrieval, which means a
Medium 0.448 1 0.085
similarity score of 1 is assigned when the attribute values of Low 0.0023 0.085 1
the two cases match exactly whereas, a 0 score is given for
Responsibility High 1 0.359 0.161
completely different values. The similarity function for
Medium 0.359 1 0.456
fuzzy linguistic attributes is derived from the area ratio Low 0.161 0.456 1
approach [28]. Under this approach, the similarity between
Complexity High 1 0.566 0.172
two fuzzy linguistic attributes is defined as follows:
Medium 0.566 1 0.326
Similarityðxi ; yi Þ ¼ Aðxi > yi Þ=Aðxi < yi Þ Low 0.172 0.326 1
Risk allocation High 1 0.356 0.176
¼ Aðxi > yi Þ=Aðxi Þ þ Aðyi Þ 2 Aðxi > yi Þ Medium 0.356 1 0.500
Low 0.176 0.500 1
where A represents the area of the corresponding member-
ship function, xi > yi and xi < yi are the intersection and Price competition High 1 0.279 0.056
Medium 0.279 1 0.201
union of the membership functions of two fuzzy linguistic Low 0.056 0.201 1
variables xi and yi ; respectively (Fig. 4).
The fuzzy membership functions of common linguistic Quality High 1 0.404 0.086
Medium 0.404 1 0.290
case attributes—speed of project, flexibility, responsibility,
Low 0.086 0.290 1
complexity, price competition, risk allocation and quality
434 D.T. Luu et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 34 (2003) 429–438

Fig. 5. Outcome generated by the fuzzy similarity retrieval mechanism.

analysis and consideration. Fig. 5 shows the outcome
generated by the matching and scoring processes.
In the matching result box (Fig. 5), five most similar cases
along with their similarity scores are retrieved and presented
to the decision-makers. By selecting a particular retrieved
case in the matching result box, the users can review the case
details, and the client’s evaluation on the project performance,
such as communication efficiency, team performance, future
working relationship between client and the main contractor.
Further case details can be made available should the
users click on the view details button. As shown in Fig. 6,
these additional details include project’s PSC and their
linguistic classifications, the procurement system used in
the stored case and its full details (i.e. mechanism,
advantages and disadvantages), sub-managerial systems
(i.e. tendering method and contractual arrangement), and
the extent to which the retrieved case differs from the
current one.

Fig. 6. Critic-based adaptation in the procurement advisory system.

 D.T. Luu et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 34 (2003) 429–438 435

Fig. 7. Rule-based adaptation provided in the prototype system.

4.3. Adaptation
A combination of different adaptation strategies was
adopted for CPAS. For instance, if the users are satisfied that
the retrieved case closely resembles the current one, they
can employ a null adaptation strategy by simply adopting
the solution of the matching case to the new case without
any modification. However, when the intrinsic character-
istics and requirements between the two cases differ,
modifications to the historic solutions might be desirable.
Critic-based adaptation [29] and parameterized adaptation
[23] strategies are provided to help decision-makers come
up with a more suitable solution. Once the users have
decided to adapt the retrieved solution and chosen the adapt
case to better suit expectations button, the system displays
an adaptation screen to guide the users through the
adaptation process (Fig. 7).
The upper part of the adaptation screen (Fig. 7) displays
the adaptation information, i.e. the full extent of differ-
ences between the retrieved and the present cases as well
as advices on case attributes that might require subsequent
adaptation. Built-in adaptation rules (Table 3) determine
the extent to which adaptation is required for the retrieved
case. By selecting any particular case attribute highlighted
for potential further modifications, the users are provided
with a list of activities that might be implemented to
improve the performance of this attribute to the expected
level. This list was compiled according to the advantages
436 D.T. Luu et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 34 (2003) 429–438

Table 3 5. System reliability

Inference rules deciding which case feature(s) might require further
adaptation
In order to demonstrate the practicality of CPAS, an
Case attributes Presented Stored attribute Requirement actual construction project involving the procurement of a
attribute value value (historic for further hardware retail facility in New South Wales, Australia was
(current situation) adaptation
situation)
selected to test the model. The client was a renowned
Australian hardware retailing company. While the project
If 0 # importance site had relatively good construction traffic ingress and
weighting # 3 egress as well as posed little risks to the construction
activities; the client did not envisage any apparent
All attributes All values All values No
difficulties to any building contractors in delivering
If 4 # importance the project. Nevertheless, the client also saw this project
weighting # 6 as a good opportunity for establishing a close business
relationship with one particular local contractor whose
Speed, flexibility, High Low Yes
performances in a couple of similar past construction
complexity, price
competition, risk projects were quite excellent as they recognized the benefits
allocation, quality of having a good communication channel between the
High Medium No contracting parties. The major challenge, however, was the
Medium High No time they had to complete the project, as that would lead to
Medium Low No
Low Medium No
extra financial resources.
Low High No In implementing CPAS to solve the procurement
problem in this project, a total of 30 historic construction
Responsibility High Low Yes
High Medium No
projects were collected to train the model. A set of PSC and
Medium High No their importance weightings were identified in accordance
Medium Low No with the characteristics of the project, its client and external
Low Medium No environment. Using these data as input, CPAS evaluated
Low High Yes
the situation and recommended negotiated design and build
Timer certainty, Yes No Yes (the solution of case 28) as the most appropriate procure-
cost certainty ment system for the project (Fig. 8).
No Yes Yes
To determine whether the solution generated by the
If 7 # importance
model is comparable to that produced by domain experts,
weighting # 10 four independent experts were invited to solve the
specified problem based on their own experience. As
Speed, flexibility, High Low Yes shown in Table 4, CPAS and the experts unequivocally
complexity, price
competition, risk
pointed to the use of negotiated design and build for this
allocation, quality project. In fact, this procurement method was selected by
High Medium Yes the client for implementation in the project.
Medium High No At the time this paper was written, the project had been
Medium Low Yes
progressing well into its third month. According to the main
Low Medium No
Low High No contractor of this project, the use of design and build
procurement method has by far provided the project team
Responsibility High Low Yes
High Medium Yes
Medium High Yes
Medium Low Yes
Low Medium Yes
Low High Yes
Timer certainty, Yes No Yes
cost certainty
No Yes Yes

and disadvantages of currently available procurement

systems. The adaptation process is completed once the
relevant activities have been selected, and the users are
prompted to the adapted results through the system output
screen. Fig. 8. Procurement system solution for the case study.
 D.T. Luu et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 34 (2003) 429–438 437

Table 4 selection models, the CBR approach caters for the fuzzy
Case study procurement solutions generated by experts and CPAS characteristics and the complicated intrinsic interrelation-
Decision- Solution ship of PSC. Since CBR is an experience-based approach, the
maker experiences of previous cases can be made available to the
Procurement Tendering method Contract type users to provide an early indication of the likely future
systems outcomes of the prospective project. This feature is not
addressed in the current analytical approaches for procure-
Expert A Design and Selective competition AS4300
build using a list of pre-
ment selection.
qualified contractors Based on the information collected from the experts, a
Expert B Design and Negotiation with the Design and construct conceptual framework for a CPAS for construction was
build mentioned local contracts–Master devised. The framework was subsequently developed into a
contractor with a Builders Association computer prototype using a CBR shell—ARTpEnterprise.
view to go into a of New South Wales
long term partnering
The prototype, using trial data, has demonstrated that CBR
relationship approach can provide appropriate recommendations for the
Expert C Design and Negotiation with the AS4300 procurement of a hardware retail facility. Further validation
build mentioned local on the performance of the system also yielded satisfactory
contractor with a results.
view to go into a
long term partnering
As the process of identifying the PSC, their conditions
relationship (i.e. linguistic classifications), and impacts (i.e. importance
Expert D Design, Selective competition C21 contract weightings) is largely dependant on previous experiences of
construct & using a list of pre- decision-makers, it seems sensible to model this process
maintenance qualified contractors
using the CBR approach too. The development of such a
CPAS Design and Negotiation Design and construct
build contracts—Master sub-system for procurement selection is being investigated.
Builders Association Once developed, this sub-system should overcome the
of New South Wales inherent weaknesses of the CPAS proposed in this paper, as
Client Design and Negotiation with the In-house written it will no longer have to rely rigidly on a list of nine PSC
build mentioned local contract incorporating
alone for case representation and retrieval.
contractor clauses for partnering

with greater flexibility in utilizing its experience/knowledge

on constructable and economical design solutions to improve
the success of the project in terms of time, cost and quality.
Further investigations were also conducted to establish
the reliability of CPAS. First, a case library subset test
[30] was used to measure the accuracy of the retrieval
and adaptation mechanisms. Using the case-base of 30
past construction projects, the result recorded a 100 and
81.5% success rates for retrieval and adaptation,
respectively. These were considered a very satisfactory
outcome. A face validation [31] was then employed to
capture the perception and satisfaction of domain experts
on the system’s performance. During the face validation,
a series of short demonstrations were presented to the four
procurement experts involved in the above case study,
and the experts were asked to apply their knowledge and
intuition to compare the system’s performance against
that of human experts. The participating experts were
satisfied with the results generated by CPAS, and they
believed that the system could provide practical and
reliable procurement advices for construction projects.
6. Conclusion
This paper has presented a new way for procurement
selection using the CBR approach. Unlike other procurement
References
[1] Naoum SG. Critical analysis of time and cost of management and
traditional contracts. J Construct Engng Mgmt 1994;120(4):687–705.
[2] Sharif A, Morledge R. The procurement systems model by the
functional approach. In: Skitmore RM, Betts M, editors. Proceedings
of 10th Annual ARCOM Conference. Leicestershire: Loughborough
University of Technology, Association of Researchers in Construction
Management; 1994. p. 660–71.
[3] Rwelamila PD, Meyer C. Appropriate or default project procurement
systems. Cost Engng 1999;41(9):40–4.
[4] Kumaraswamy M, Dissanayaka S. Developing a decision support
system for building project procurement. Bldg Environ 2001;36(3):
337–49.
[5] NEDO, Thinking about building. London: National Economic
Development Office/HMSO; 1985.
[6] Franks J. Building procurement systems: a guide to building project
management. Ascot: Chartered Institute of Building; 1990.
[7] Skitmore RM, Marsden DE. Which procurement system? Towards a
universal procurement selection technique. Construct Mgmt Econ
1988;6:71–89.
[8] Bennett J, Grice A. In: Brandon PS, editor. Procurement systems for
building, quantity surveying techniques: new directions. Oxford: BSP
Professional Books; 1990.
[9] Singh S. Proceedings of CIB-90 Buliding Economics and Construc-
tion Management. Sydney, NSW: University of Technology; 1990.
[10] Ambrose MD, Tucker SN. Matching a procurement system to client
and project needs: a procurement system evaluator. In: Bowen PA,
Hindle RD, editors. Proceedings: Customer Satisfaction: A Focus for
Research and Practice in Construction. Cape Town: University of
Cape Town; 1999. p. 280–8.
438 D.T. Luu et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 34 (2003) 429–438
[11] Chan APC, Ho DCK, Tam CM. Design and build project success factors:
multivariate analysis. J Construct Engng Mgmt 2001;127(2):93–100.
[12] Cheung SO, Lam TI, Wan YW, Lam KC. Improving objectivity in
procurement selection. J Mgmt Engng 2001;17(3):132–9.
[13] Alhazmi T, McCaffer R. Project procurement system selection model.
J Construct Engng Mgmt 2000;126(3):176 –84.
[14] Brandon ES, Basden A, Hamilton IW. Expert system: the strategic
planning of construction projects. UK: Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors and University of Salford; 1988.
[15] Ng ST, Luu DT, Chen SE. Decision criteria and their subjectivity in
construction procurement selection. Aust J Construct Econ Bldg 2002;
2(1):70–80.
[16] Chang CY, Ive G. Rethinking the multi-attribute utility approach
based procurement route selection technique. Construct Mgmt Econ
2002;20:275 –84.
[17] Ireland V. The role of managerial actions in cost, time and quality
performance of high rise commercial building projects. Construct
Mgmt Econ 1985;3(1):59–87.
[18] Nahapiet H, Nahapiet J. The management of construction projects:
case studies from the UK & USA. Ascot: Chartered Institute of
Building; 1985.
[19] Hamilton IW. In: Brandon PS, editor. Developing expert systems for
management applications. Building cost modeling and computers.
London: E & FN Spon; 1987.
[20] Tookey JE, Murray M, Hardcastle C, Langford D. Construction
procurement routes: re-defining the contours of construction procure-
ment. J Engng Construct Architect Mgmt 2001;8(1):20–30.
[21] Ward SC, Curis B, Chapman CB. Objectives and performance in
construction projects. Construct Mgmt Econ 1991;9:343 –53.
[22] Masterman JWE. An introduction to building procurement systems.
London: E & FN Spon; 1992.
[23] Kolodner JL. Case based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan
Kaufmann; 1993.
[24] Schank RC, Kass A, Riesbeck CK. In: Erlbaum L, editor. Inside case-
based reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Associates Publishers; 1994.
[25] Barletta R. An introduction to case-based reasoning. AI Expert 1991;
43– 9.
[26] Aamodt A, Plaza E. Case based reasoning: foundational issues,
methodological variations and system approaches. Artif Intell
Commun 1994;7:39–59.
[27] Ng ST, Luu DT, Chen SE, Lam KC. Fuzzy membership functions of
procurement selection criteria. Construct Mgmt Econ 2002;20(3):
285 –96.
[28] Liao TW, Zhang Z, Mount C. Similarity measures for retrieval in
case-based reasoning systems. Appl Artif Intell 1998;12:267–88.
[29] Brown SJ, Lewis LM. A case-based reasoning solution to the problem
of redundant resolutions of nonconformances in large-scale manu-
facturing. In: Smith R, Scott C, editors. Innovative applications of
artificial intelligence 3, AAAI Press; 1993. p. 121 –33.
[30] Gonzalez AJ, Xu L, Gupta UM. Validation techniques for case-based
reasoning systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1998;28(4):
465 –77.
[31] O’Keefe RM, Balci O, Smith EP. Validating expert system
performance. IEEE Expert 1987;Winter:81–7.