pdf (285 KB), English, Pages 60

Document technical information

Format pdf
Size 291.6 kB
First found Feb 4, 2016

Document content analysis

Language
English
Type
not defined
Concepts
no text concepts found

Organizations

Places

Transcript

Number 9, Year 2014
Page 60-69
Decision support concept for managing the maintenance of city parking facilities
DECISION SUPPORT CONCEPT FOR MANAGING THE MAINTENANCE OF
CITY PARKING FACILITIES
Nikša Jajac
University of Split, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Geodesy, Assistant Professor
Ivan Marović
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Senior Assistant
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Martina Baučić
University of Split, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Geodesy, M.Sc.
Abstract: In this paper, we study the maintenance of city parking facilities (CPFs), specifically on modeling and
support for decision-making related to planning CPF maintenance. Managing the maintenance of CPFs is
complicated because it is a multi-disciplinary problem involving many participants, huge quantities of information,
limited budgets, and conflicts of goals and criteria. These facts indicate that the decision-making processes in
managing the maintenance of CPFs are ill-defined problems. To help maintenance managers cope with this
complexity, we propose an approach that combines analytic hierarchy processing (AHP) and PROMETHEE
multicriteria methods, and apply this approach to a priority-setting problem. After assessing the conditions of
existing CPFs and the planned states of those CPFs, our approach produced a goal tree and criteria, and defined
possible actions for the parking facilities. Representatives of stakeholders provided criteria weights by applying
the AHP method. Using PROMETHEE II, we ranked the priorities, and the PROMETHEE V method allowed us to
define the implementation phases of maintenance, producing the final maintenance plan. We validated our
concept in the city of Split.
Keywords: maintenance management, decision support, city parking, multicriteria methods
KONCEPT ZA PODRŠKU ODLUČIVANJU U UPRAVLJANJU ODRŽAVANJEM
GRADSKIH PARKINGA
Sažetak: Fokus ovoga rada usmjeren je na fazu održavanja u projektima gradskih parkinga. Uže područje
predstavljenog istraživanja je modeliranje podrške odlučivanju vezano uz planiranje održavanja. Upravljanje
održavanjem gradskim parkinzima implicira kompleksni proces odlučivanja. Razlozi kompleksnosti su: veliki broj
dionika, multidisciplinarnost, velika količina podataka, ograničen budžet, suprotstavljenost ciljeva i kriterija (dakle,
tipični problemi upravljanja održavanjem gradske infrastrukture). Ove činjenice ukazuju da odlučivanje u
upravljanju održavanjem gradskih parkinga spada u slabo strukturirane probleme. Radi pomaganja managerima
održavanja u suočavanju s takvom kompleksnošću, predloženo je angažiranje višekriterijskih metoda AHP i
PROMETHEE. Višekriterijski pristup je korišten za prioritetno rangiranje. Analiziranjem postojećeg
(procjenjivanjem stanja gradskih parkinga tijekom monitoringa) i planiranog stanja parkinga u gradu, uspostavljeni
su stablo ciljeva i kriteriji (ciljevi posljednje hijerarhijske razine u stablu ciljeva). Sukladno tome, definirana su
alternativna rješenja/lokacije parkinga. Korištenjem metode AHP, predstavnici dionika odredili su težine kriterija.
PROMETHEE II je korištena za prioritetno rangiranje, a temeljem PROMETHEE V definirane su faze
implementacije. Rezultat prezentiranog koncepta je plan održavanja. Koncept je validiran na primjeru grada
Splita.
Ključne riječi: upravljanje održavanjem, podrška odlučivanju, gradski parking, višekriterijske metode
Jajac, N, Marović, I, Baučić, M
http://dx.doi.org/10.13167/2014.9.7
60
Number 9, Year 2014
Page 60-69
Decision support concept for managing the maintenance of city parking facilities
1
INTRODUCTION
Deciding how to maintain and manage the ever-growing urban road infrastructure—including roads, bridges,
tunnels, and parking facilities—is a difficult and socially sensitive activity. City authorities must manage
maintenance projects for urban road infrastructure in ways that meet the requirements of all stakeholders while
allowing for sustainable development. Maintenance becomes even more complex when it must be planned and
implemented on a strict schedule, as is often required. In this case, planning is never-ending and dynamic
because maintenance cannot be stopped in an active city. Considering that a well-maintained city can be a more
active city, a well-maintained infrastructure offers the city's residents a better quality of life. Thus, maintenance
planning should be made as efficient as possible by using appropriate decision tools.
There is much research on supporting decisions related to managing the infrastructure of urban roads. For
example, Bielli [1] demonstrated a decision support system (DSS) approach to managing urban traffic, aiming to
maximize the efficiency and productivity of the traffic system. Other literature has explored cost-benefit
evaluations of potential infrastructure investments and several decision support models [2–4]. For example,
Quintero et al. [5] described an improvement to DSS called IDSS (intelligent decision support system), which
coordinates the management of urban infrastructures, such as sewage and water. Leclerc et al. [6] provided an
IDSS module for managing complaints related to urban infrastructure. Coutinho-Rodrigues et al. [7] provided a
spatial decision support system for planning urban infrastructure, integrating a geographic information system
(GIS) and the simple additive weighting (SAW) method. In their paper, they noted that their procedure could be
used to plan other types of infrastructure, including transport infrastructure.
There are many other studies on urban road infrastructure, including on stationary traffic and its
infrastructure, planning, decision making, and maintenance [8–12]. However, this research has focused only on
routine and periodic (resealing and rehabilitation) maintenance, emergency and extraordinary activities such as
repairs of sudden, accidental damage and road failure (particularly in parking facilities); infrastructure has not
been widely studied.
That said, some authors have studied infrastructure. For example, Rouse and Chiu [13] described an
optimal way to manage lifecycles in road maintenance in New Zealand, giving much information on maintaining
the important characteristics of road infrastructure elements. Many of these characteristics, important for planning
maintenance, are the same or very similar to those for parking facilities, especially for on-street parking. They
also provide best practices for optimal maintenance. In another study, Huang et al. [14] developed a lifecycle
assessment tool for the construction and maintenance of asphalt pavements.
While making maintenance decisions, one must remember how the maintenance will affect the environment
and traffic flow. To address these issues, Huang et al. [15] studied how various types of road maintenance
generated emissions and disrupted traffic. Later, we will describe the research that most influenced our approach
to the decision support concept (DSC), used to support the maintenance management for city parking facilities
(CPFs).
Figure 1 shows the structure of our proposed DSC, showing its three decision levels (strategic, tactical, and
operative) used for managing urban infrastructure, based on research by Jajac et al. [3, 4, 10, 16]. The three
management levels are separated by the scope of the decision-making process, where strategic is the broadest
and operative the narrowest. This modular concept is based on the basic structure of the DSS: data, dialog,
models. The modules interact during decision-making at all management levels, which serve as meeting points of
adequate models and data. The aquatinted knowledge is structured in an adequate knowledge-based system,
which is situated in a database, where all decisions and accumulated knowledge is stored.
Jajac, N, Marović, I, Baučić, M
http://dx.doi.org/10.13167/2014.9.7
61
Number 9, Year 2014
Page 60-69
Decision support concept for managing the maintenance of city parking facilities
Figure 1 Architecture of the DSS for urban infrastructure management [3, 4, 10, 16]
Many outside factors can influence urban infrastructure and its management. In the present work, we will
focus on city parking, as it is part of urban road infrastructure. Decision-making and management are affected not
only by technology, which influences them at all levels, but also by local behavior, which includes the actual and
traditional styles of management and decision-making, the local mentality, and the various groups of stakeholders
[3]. Through the present work, we will demonstrate that our proposed DSS provides adequate support for
managing city parking projects because they are subsets of urban infrastructure projects. Because we focus only
on city parking, we use the logic of the cited DSSs to design a new DSC that is suitable only for managing city
parking facilities.
A major inspiration for our work, as stated before, is Jajac et al. [4], who provided a decision support system
for managing the maintenance of urban infrastructure. They aimed to provide a DSS that balanced maintenance
investments among different parts of the urban road infrastructure in order to balance the quality of the services
provided to the users. In contrast, our research focuses on designing a DSC that provides decision-making
support related only to managing the maintenance of one type of urban road infrastructure: city parking. We
adapted the DSC to the specifics of managing the maintenance of CPFs, considering both the
economic/commercial aspects and the technical aspects of CPFs while accounting for environmental issues, and
designed it for people making decisions solely in parking management.
2
DESIGNING AND USING THE DSC TO MANAGE CPF MAINTENANCE
Using the work cited before, we developed a DSC to support management decisions related to maintaining CPFs.
Implementing this DSC depends on the needs of various shareholders and limited resources, most often limited
funding in the city budget. These realities show that, generally, decision-making problems related to maintaining
CPFs involve priority-setting. The DSC we propose recognizes some of these crucial problems and provides
models to support decision-making. Figure 2 proposes an approach to set priorities for maintenance and to
establish a maintenance plan by using the DSC.
The decision-making process starts at both the strategic and tactical levels. Here, the spatial boundaries of
the research must be selected: all of the city or a section of it. The planning process must be defined as applying
to all CPFs or to only the CPFs owned by the city government. It must also be defined as applying only to CPFs
managed by the city government, only to CPFs managed by a third party (the concessionaire), or to both. To
define the scope of the research, the functional boundaries must also be determined. To support efficient
decision-making, the stakeholders must be identified and selected. Stakeholders are divided into three groups:
experts in maintaining road infrastructure (particularly parking facilities), local governmental officials connected to
managing municipal infrastructure, and representatives of the users. The third group usually consists of elected
representatives of districts or similar city formations.
Jajac, N, Marović, I, Baučić, M
http://dx.doi.org/10.13167/2014.9.7
62
Number 9, Year 2014
Page 60-69
Decision support concept for managing the maintenance of city parking facilities
Goal analysis
Determination of spatial and
functional boundaries
Determination of goal,
objectives and criteria – goal
tree formation
Establishment of Parking
Facilities Inventory (PFI)
Preliminary criteria weights by
AHP
Monitoring
Final criteria weights
Comparison of actions by
PROMETHEE II
Priority ranking
Introduction of constraints by
PROMETHEE V
Maintenance plan
Figure 2 Architecture of DSC used to manage the maintenance of CPFs
After defining the shareholders, on the tactical level a priority-setting model must be set. Because of the illstructured problem that emerges from incomparable data and conflicts in stakeholders’ demands, we use a
multicriteria model. Multicriteria priority-setting begins with goal analysis and produces a hierarchical goal
structure, a goal tree, and the main goal is sustainable maintenance of CPFs.
Next, the objectives of the goal tree must be defined, dividing the main goal into several supporting or firstlevel objectives. Then, sub-objectives of first-level objectives must be provided. The process of generating subobjectives is repeated until the objectives cannot or does not need to be divided further. Objectives and subobjectives must be defined in a way so they can be measured.
After dividing the objectives into sub-objectives, the goal tree is established. The tree provides an overview
of the mutual relationships between objectives within the hierarchy, but does not provide any information about
the relative importance of objectives at the same level. It is particularly important to determine the relative
importance of objectives situated on the same hierarchical level. Because goal analysis is the basis for defining a
criterion, criteria are integral to the goal tree. The process of defining the goal tree and its criteria involves the
local government officials and experts, while setting up the criteria weights involves opinions from all stakeholder
groups.
Using analytic hierarchy processing (AHP) [17], it is easy to assign weights to criteria through group
decision-making by interviewing all the stakeholder groups. Multicriteria decision-making is supported by several
strategies, also known as scenarios. Each preliminary scenario comprises a different combination of criteria
weights, representing the opinion of each stakeholder group. Taking several preliminary scenarios, the
compromise scenario (final scenario) can be defined, which will be used for ranking priorities. The final scenario
is defined as a set of compromise criteria weights, each of which is the average of the preliminary weights for the
criterion over all preliminary scenarios.
In parallel with goal analysis, the DSC identifies the parking facilities in the study area and sets up a parking
facilities inventory (PFI). The PFI must contain names and locations of the CPFs and data relevant to managing
their maintenance. The relevant characteristics must be known for each CPF because these data will be used as
Jajac, N, Marović, I, Baučić, M
http://dx.doi.org/10.13167/2014.9.7
63
Number 9, Year 2014
Page 60-69
Decision support concept for managing the maintenance of city parking facilities
criteria for comparing the different CPFs during priority ranking. To assess these characteristics, the CPFs should
be comprehensively monitored.
The monitoring program must include forms, a schedule, and a CPF inspection process. The form for
assessing the maintenance status must represent a summary of all aspects relevant to managing its
maintenance. The most common aspects are as follows: status of signs and signals, status of equipment, status
of cross-section, and status of structure. Equally important but usually neglected are data on the costeffectiveness and managerial aspects. Inspecting a CPF combines a visual inspection and other measurements.
From the CPF inspection, the condition of the CPF can be determined. Each CPF can be inspected and
reassessed in a repeating period from six months to one year, depending on how intensely it is used.
In our research, we ranked priorities by using the PROMETHEE II method [18]. In this method, each CPF
represents one action of the multicriteria model. To begin the multicriteria priority-setting process, data from
monitoring and inspection are inputted into a decision matrix, generating a ranking of CPFs. Then, a maintenance
plan is established. The strategic plans and opinions of the decision-makers (local government) must also be
introduced, which can be done in PROMETHEE V, a combination of the PROMETHEE II method and (0-1) linear
programming.
The result of PROMETHEE V is a subset of the analyzed CPF, and it can be used to plan and perform
maintenance in the first investment cycle. All other phases of maintenance implementation can be determined in
the same way. This process generates the maintenance plan. We validated our process in the city of Split.
VALIDATING THE PROPOSED DSC
3
Worldwide, urban expansion and the huge growth in vehicle ownership complicates the maintenance of CPFs,
especially in densely populated town centers. The town of Split is no exception. The study area we used to
validate our DSC is the wider city center of Split, using only CPFs owned and managed by the city government.
Table 1 surveys the area and identifies the CPFs and PFI. During monitoring, the conditions of these CPFs were
assessed. Monitoring included inspection of on-street parking, off-street parking, and parking garages; that is, all
the parking facilities identified within the research area.
Table 1 CPFs in the study area included in the PFI
Code
1
CPF name
Zrinsko-Frankopanska-grad
2
Trg HBZ
23
SPL Spinut
44
3
Sukoisanska
24
Konzum-Lora
45
4
Usjek pruge–HEP
25
Museum of CAM
46
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Lavcevic
Lavcevic-garage
Domovinskog rata (east-west)
Luka
Goricka
Mazuranicevo setaliste-FINA
Mazuranicevo setaliste-garage
Vukovarska
Koteks
Gripe-Koteks-garage
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
15
Boskoviceva I
36
57
Gunduliceva-Dalma
16
Boskoviceva II
37
58
Mikaciceva
17
18
19
Poljicka-Brodomerkur
Poljicka-Monter
Krizine hospitall
38
39
40
Meje-Zvoncac
Sustipan
Sv. Frane
Matejuška
Lazarica-Firule
Firule hospital
SC Gripe
Sukoisan north
Kragiceva-Plinarska
Sukoisan-bus terminal
Sukoisan – in front of public
garage
Domovinskog rata (bust terminalHRM)
Train terminal
Pojisan
Bacvice
CPF name
Zoraniceva
Tolstojeva (MarunovaZagrebacka)
Tolstojeva-Public library
Trumbiceva obala–Marjanske
skale
Trumbiceva obala-HGK
Bana Jelacica-HB
Port authority-Riva
Katalinicev prilaz
Preradovicevo setaliste-HP
Bijankinijeva
Zagrebacka
Svaciceva
Svaciceva-Grad
Gunduliceva
59
60
61
20
Poljud- swimming pools
41
Firule-Sumica
62
21
Hajduk- football stadium
42
Starceviceva
63
Riva-Sv.Frane
Gunduliceva-parking
Goricka-parking
Poljicka cetsa (OsjeckaDubrovacka)
Vinkovacka-Sucidar market
Jajac, N, Marović, I, Baučić, M
http://dx.doi.org/10.13167/2014.9.7
Code
22
CPF name
SPL Mornar
Code
43
64
Number 9, Year 2014
Page 60-69
Decision support concept for managing the maintenance of city parking facilities
For each CPF, monitoring began with an inspection. The inspector entered data into many forms, and then
arranged it into a final monitoring form, shown in Table 2, which was used to estimate the maintenance
requirements. The monitoring process should be repeated once a year.
Table 2 Final form for monitoring the maintenance conditions of CPFs
CPF maintenance conditions status assessment
Signs and signals
Vertical signs, horizontal signs, traffic signals
Equipment
Pavement edge marking equipment, fences, lightening
Cross section elements Pavement, gutter and drain, marginal strip, pedestrian path, traffic flow
canalization elements, shoulder, pipe man hole
Characteristics of CPF
Fracture, other damages, concrete armature cover, displacement of main
structure and other
structure elements, bearing, installation, fire protection equipment,
related characteristics
structural elements appearance
Capacity
Number of vehicles that can be parked in CPF
Parking fee
Per hour
Occupancy rate
Per year
Billing
Existence of automated or manual billing
Investment
Required financial founds
Assessment
Figure 3 and Table 3 describe established goal hierarchy for the analyzed problem. Our main goal was
“Sustainable maintenance of CPFs in the city of Split,” and achieving this goal depends on a stepwise approach
to maintaining the 63 CPFs. All stakeholders were involved in defining the goals in the lower levels (first and
second); from this, the objective tree was configured, as shown in Figure 3.
The main goal and objectives of the first level were defined according to the “Split Development Strategy.”
This strategy was provided for a time period up to 2015 by the city government and experts, and it was adopted
by the city council, the representative body of the city's citizens. The objectives of the second level (later used as
criteria) were generated by all members from all three stakeholder groups. After brainstorming, each group
provided their objectives. The representatives from all three groups agreed unanimously on which generated
objectives would be incorporated in the goal tree. The user group provided the C5 and C6 criteria, the expert
group provided C1, C2, C3, and C4, and the local government group provided C7, C8, and C9. Figure 3, Table 2,
and Table 3 show these criteria. Because the criteria for multicriteria analysis form the objective tree, the last
hierarchic level of this particular tree represents the criteria set used to rank the CPFs for maintenance priority.
Figure 3 Goal tree (with compromise weights) of the maintenance priority-setting problem for CPFs in the
town of Split
Jajac, N, Marović, I, Baučić, M
http://dx.doi.org/10.13167/2014.9.7
65
Number 9, Year 2014
Page 60-69
Decision support concept for managing the maintenance of city parking facilities
Table 3 Hierarchy, code, and description of the goal, objectives, and criteria
0
G
1
O1
1
O2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
Description of goal, objectives, criteria
Objectives Goal
Criteria label
Criteria
Hierarchy level
Sustainable maintenance of CPF in the city of Split
Maximization of maintenance quality of CPF (for owners and users)
Maximization of cost-effective/managerial sustainability
Maintenance improvements of traffic signs and signals
Maintenance improvements of CPF equipment
Maintenance improvements of cross-section elements
Maintenance improvements of CFP structure and other characteristics
Maximization of CPF capacity
Minimization of parking fee
Maximization of occupancy rate
Maximization of billing efficiency
Minimization of investment founds
The criteria weights used to compare actions (by using the PROMETHEE II method) were provided by the
AHP method, and all stakeholders were involved in this process. Using the established goal hierarchy (goal tree)
and the opinions of the stakeholders groups, three preliminary scenarios were developed. Table 4 shows the
three preliminary scenarios with three sets of criteria weights.
he first scenario describes the preferences of the citizens (users), the second describes those of the experts, and
the third describes those of the city authorities (local government). The user group comprises 23 elected
representatives, one from each district. The expert group comprises 3 experts in maintaining road infrastructure,
particularly parking facilities: two scientists from two Croatian universities, and the manager of the company that
maintains the roads in Split. The local government group comprises 3 representatives: the deputy mayor, the
head of the department of municipal infrastructure management, and one employee of this department who is
engaged in maintaining the road infrastructure of Split.
The criteria weights of the three preliminary scenarios were used to calculate the final (fourth) scenario by a
simple arithmetic mean, giving equal importance to all stakeholder groups. This fourth scenario is the
compromise view, used to execute the DSC.
Table 4 Criteria weights and scenarios
Criteria
label
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
Criteria
Maintenance improvements of traffic
signs and signals
Maintenance improvements of CPF
equipment
Maintenance improvements of crosssection elements
Maintenance improvements of CFP
structure and other characteristics
Maximization of CPF capacity
Minimisation of parking fee
Maximization of occupancy rate
Maximization of billing efficiency
Minimisation of investment
Scen.
1
Scen.
2
Scen.
3
Average
weight
Preference function
Shape-MIN/MAX
0.04
0.12
0.08
0.08
V-Shape
MAX
0.04
0.11
0.08
0.08
V-Shape
MAX
0.11
0.24
0.14
0.16
V-Shape
MAX
0.11
0.22
0.14
0.16
V-Shape
MAX
0.24
0.24
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.07
0.03
0.06
0.20
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.20
0.18
0.11
0.06
0.06
0.11
V-Shape
V-Shape
V-Shape
Usual
V-Shape
MAX
MIN
MAX
MAX
MIN
After creating the final scenario, the multicriteria model for ranking the CPFs was created. It has 9 criteria
and 63 actions/alternatives. Table 4 also shows the function used to form each criterion, giving the type of
preference function in the seventh column, and whether the variable was to be minimized or maximized in the
eighth column. For 8 criteria, the most used type of function is the V-Shape function, while for a single criterion
Jajac, N, Marović, I, Baučić, M
http://dx.doi.org/10.13167/2014.9.7
66
Number 9, Year 2014
Page 60-69
Decision support concept for managing the maintenance of city parking facilities
the most used type is the usual function. Table 5 shows the top 10 CPFs, ranked based on the weights from the
compromise scenario, according to how necessary it is to maintain each.
Table 5 Preference flows and PROMETHEE II ranking for the compromise scenario
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Φ
0.3210
0.2111
0.2109
0.1877
0.1593
0.1523
0.1523
0.0991
0.0701
0.0612
0.0453
Code
4
49
5
38
8
33
34
7
42
26
2
CPF-alternatives/actions
Usjek pruge–HEP
Port authority-Riva
Lavcevic
Train terminal
Luka
Sukoisan north
Kragiceva-Plinarska
Domovinskog rata (east-west)
Starceviceva
Meje-Zvoncac
Trg HBZ
However, a few top-ranked alternatives were not selected for the first implementation of the maintenance
plan. This was caused by a number of influences, including the opinions of the decision-makers (representatives
of city government), which were not covered by any criteria, as well as the availability of required resources,
especially financial resources, and the needs for CPFs in particular sections of the study area. To account for
these additional influences, several constraints must be introduced.
These constraints were defined with input from the experts and city government representatives. These
constraints are defined as a set of linear equations, inequalities, or both. Only one constraint within this set is
related to the available financial resources for the next investment cycle (750,000 EUR). All other constraints are
related to functional and spatial aspects of the problem, and they are defined as follows: First, at least two CPFs
are needed in the contact area of Diocletian Palace; second, at least one CPF is needed in the city port area;
third, no more than two CPFs are needed in the area of the civil court house; and fourth, no more than two CPFs
are needed in the area of the Marjan city park/forest. By introducing constraints using the PROMETHEE V
method, the first phase of the maintenance plan can be finalized, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6 First phase of the maintenance plan
Code
4
49
26
33
34
3
12
63
CPF-alternatives/actions
Usjek pruge–HEP
Port authority-Riva
Meje-Zvoncac
Sukoisan north
Kragiceva-Plinarska
Sukoišanska
Vukovarska
Vikovacka-Sucidar
market
The PROMETHEE V results placed 8 of the 63 CPFs in the first maintenance phase for the next investment
cycle. Note that only 5 of these 8 CPFs were ranked in the top 10 ranked CPFs, as shown in Table 5.
Jajac, N, Marović, I, Baučić, M
http://dx.doi.org/10.13167/2014.9.7
67
Number 9, Year 2014
Page 60-69
Decision support concept for managing the maintenance of city parking facilities
4
CONCLUSION
Supporting complex and sensitive decision-making processes such as ranking priorities for maintenance of CPFs
cannot be achieved without using DSS principles and appropriate multicriteria methods, along with the data they
require. To consider such an approach, we studied previous DSSs for infrastructure management, concepts for
supporting the management of maintaining urban road infrastructure elements, and project lifecycle
methodologies. Our new DSC, used to manage the maintenance of CPFs, is a combination of operational models
and multicriteria models.
Our DSC functioned well when applied to CPFs owned and managed by the city government of Split, and it
can be used for all other types of road infrastructure. Maintenance decision-making processes can be supported
at all hierarchy levels by interactions among the DSC modules. By creating a monitoring program, the data
needed to define the maintenance status of the CPFs could be acquired in uniform amounts and on a uniform
schedule.
The multicriteria analysis has several methodological and sociopolitical advantages when resolving complex
problems such as planning the maintenance of CPFs, regardless of decision level. The stakeholders were divided
into three different groups (citizens, maintenance experts, and representatives of city authorities), and they were
all directly involved in the decision-making. They were involved in designing the goal hierarchy (generating
objectives, sub-objectives, and criteria), by which they shaped the criteria of the alternative CPF assessment.
Their opinions are expressed by criteria weights, clarifying the planning and implementation of maintenance while
removing mistrust and biased situations.
The obtained solution, expressed as a CPF subset, provided by PROMETHEE V according to defined
maintenance criteria and introduced constraints, is a possible strategic alternative in managing the maintenance
of the CPFs. It represents the first phase or first step of the CPF maintenance plan, ensuring stepwise
achievement of the main goal, “Sustainable maintenance of CPF in the city of Split.”
References
[1]
Bielli, M. 1992: A DSS approach to urban traffic management, European Journal of Operational Research,
Volume 61, Issues 1–2, pp. 106–113.
[2] Guisseppi, A.; Forgionne, G. A. 2002: Selecting rail grade crossing investments with a decision support
system, Information Sciences, Volume 144, Issues 1–4, pp. 75–90.
[3] Jajac, N.; Knezić, S.; Mladineo, N. 2008: DSS for urban infrastructure management, Parking garages case
study, Book of proceedings, 8th International Conference on Organization, Technology and Management in
Construction, Umag, Croatia.
[4] Jajac, N.; Knezić, S.; Marović, I. 2009: Decision support system to urban infrastructure maintenance
management, Organization, Technology & Management in Construction, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp. 72–79.
[5] Quintero, A.; Konaré, D.; Pierre, S. 2005: Prototyping an intelligent decision support system for improving
urban infrastructures management, European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 162, Issue 3, pp.
654–672.
[6] Leclerc, G.; Hmiya, S.; Aïmeur, E.; Quintero, A.; Pierre, S.; Ochoa, G. 2001: An intelligent decision support
system (IDSS) for an urban infrastructure complaint management module. World Multiconference on
Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, ISAS/SCI 2001, Orlando, Florida, Volume XVIII, 143–147.
[7] Coutinho-Rodrigues, J.; Simao, A.; Antunes, C. H. 2011: A GIS-based multicriteria spatial decision support
system for planning urban infrastructures, Decision Support System, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp. 720–726.
[8] Burstein, F. 1995: IDSS: Incorporating knowledge into decision support systems, Burstein, F.; O'Donnell, P.
A.; Gilbert, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Decision Support––IDS'95, Monash
University, Melbourne, pp. 93–96.
[9] Jajac, N.; Knezić, S.; Babić, Z. 2010: Integration of multicriteria analysis into decision support concept for
urban road infastructure management, Croatian Operational Research Review, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 74–
83.
[10] Jajac, N.; Marović, I. 2014: Management of urban road infrastructure projects - decision support concept to
maintenance planning, International Review of Civil Engineering, Volume 5, Issue 5, pp. 156–162.
Jajac, N, Marović, I, Baučić, M
http://dx.doi.org/10.13167/2014.9.7
68
Number 9, Year 2014
Page 60-69
Decision support concept for managing the maintenance of city parking facilities
[11] Turban, E.; Aronson J. E. 1995: Decision support systems and intelligent systems, (5th ed.), Simon and
Schuster Company, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[12] Pomerol, J.; Roy, B.; Rosenthal-Sabroux, C. 1996: Development of an “intelligent” system for the evaluation
of railway timetables: Problems and issues, Journal of Decision Systems, Volume 5, pp. 249–267.
[13] Rouse, P.; Chiu, T. 2009: Towards optimal life cycle management in a road maintenance setting using DEA,
European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 196, Issue 2, pp. 672–681.
[14] Huang, Y.; Bird, R.; Heidrich, O. 2009: Development of a life cycle assessment tool for construction and
maintenance of asphalt pavements, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp. 283–296.
[15] Huang, Y.; Bird, R.; Bell, M. 2009: A comparative study of the emissions by road maintenance works and
the disrupted traffic using life cycle assessment and micro-simulation, Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp. 197–204.
[16] Jajac, N. 2007: Decision support system for urban infrastructure management, MSc thesis, University of
Split, Faculty of Economics, Split.
[17] Saaty, T. L. 2001: Decision Making for Leaders, The Analytic Hierarchy Process SFOR Decisions in a
Complex World, Third Edition, University of Pittsburgh, 322 Mervis Hall, Pittsburgh.
[18] Brans, J.-P.; Vincke, Ph. 1984: Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluations (The
PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria decision Making), Centrum voor Statistiek en Operationeel
Onderzoek, Vrije Universiteit, Brussel.
Jajac, N, Marović, I, Baučić, M
http://dx.doi.org/10.13167/2014.9.7
69

Similar documents

×

Report this document