The safety case and the lessons learned for the reliability and maintainability case

This paper examine the safety case and the lessons learned for the reliability and maintainability case

Development, test and comparison of two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis(MCDA) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location

When planning a new development, location decisions have always been a major issue. This paper examines and compares two modelling methods used to inform a healthcare infrastructure location decision. Two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models were developed to support the optimisation of this decision-making process, within a National Health Service (NHS) organisation, in the UK. The proposed model structure is based on seven criteria (environment and safety, size, total cost, accessibility, design, risks and population profile) and 28 sub-criteria. First, Evidential Reasoning (ER) was used to solve the model, then, the processes and results were compared with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). It was established that using ER or AHP led to the same solutions. However, the scores between the alternatives were significantly different; which impacted the stakeholders‟ decision-making. As the processes differ according to the model selected, ER or AHP, it is relevant to establish the practical and managerial implications for selecting one model or the other and providing evidence of which models best fit this specific environment. To achieve an optimum operational decision it is argued, in this study, that the most transparent and robust framework is achieved by merging ER process with the pair-wise comparison, an element of AHP. This paper makes a defined contribution by developing and examining the use of MCDA models, to rationalise new healthcare infrastructure location, with the proposed model to be used for future decision. Moreover, very few studies comparing different MCDA techniques were found, this study results enable practitioners to consider even further the modelling characteristics to ensure the development of a reliable framework, even if this means applying a hybrid approach

Assessing farmer behaviour as affected by policy and technological innovations: bio-economic farm models

Farm Management,

Risk-sensitive Inverse Reinforcement Learning via Semi- and Non-Parametric Methods

The literature on Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) typically assumes that humans take actions in order to minimize the expected value of a cost function, i.e., that humans are risk neutral. Yet, in practice, humans are often far from being risk neutral. To fill this gap, the objective of this paper is to devise a framework for risk-sensitive IRL in order to explicitly account for a human's risk sensitivity. To this end, we propose a flexible class of models based on coherent risk measures, which allow us to capture an entire spectrum of risk preferences from risk-neutral to worst-case. We propose efficient non-parametric algorithms based on linear programming and semi-parametric algorithms based on maximum likelihood for inferring a human's underlying risk measure and cost function for a rich class of static and dynamic decision-making settings. The resulting approach is demonstrated on a simulated driving game with ten human participants. Our method is able to infer and mimic a wide range of qualitatively different driving styles from highly risk-averse to risk-neutral in a data-efficient manner. Moreover, comparisons of the Risk-Sensitive (RS) IRL approach with a risk-neutral model show that the RS-IRL framework more accurately captures observed participant behavior both qualitatively and quantitatively, especially in scenarios where catastrophic outcomes such as collisions can occur.Comment: Submitted to International Journal of Robotics Research; Revision 1: (i) Clarified minor technical points; (ii) Revised proof for Theorem 3 to hold under weaker assumptions; (iii) Added additional figures and expanded discussions to improve readabilit

Landslide susceptibility mapping using multi-criteria evaluation techniques in Chittagong Metropolitan Area, Bangladesh

Landslides are a common hazard in the highly urbanized hilly areas in Chittagong Metropolitan Area (CMA), Bangladesh. The main cause of the landslides is torrential rain in short period of time. This area experiences several landslides each year, resulting in casualties, property damage, and economic loss. Therefore, the primary objective of this research is to produce the Landslide Susceptibility Maps for CMA so that appropriate landslide disaster risk reduction strategies can be developed. In this research, three different Geographic Information System-based Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis methods—the Artificial Hierarchy Process (AHP), Weighted Linear Combination (WLC), and Ordered Weighted Average (OWA)—were applied to scientifically assess the landslide susceptible areas in CMA. Nine different thematic layers or landslide causative factors were considered. Then, seven different landslide susceptible scenarios were generated based on the three weighted overlay techniques. Later, the performances of the methods were validated using the area under the relative operating characteristic curves. The accuracies of the landslide susceptibility maps produced by the AHP, WLC_1, WLC_2, WLC_3, OWA_1, OWA_2, and OWA_3 methods were found as 89.80, 83.90, 91.10, 88.50, 90.40, 95.10, and 87.10 %, respectively. The verification results showed satisfactory agreement between the susceptibility maps produced and the existing data on the 20 historical landslide locations

A Hybrid Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision Making Model to Evaluate the Overall Performance of Public Emergency Departments: A Case Study

[EN] Performance evaluation is relevant for supporting managerial decisions related to the improvement of public emergency departments (EDs). As different criteria from ED context and several alternatives need to be considered, selecting a suitable Multicriteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach has become a crucial step for ED performance evaluation. Although some methodologies have been proposed to address this challenge, a more complete approach is still lacking. This paper bridges this gap by integrating three potent MCDM methods. First, the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) is used to determine the criteria and sub-criteria weights under uncertainty, followed by the interdependence evaluation via fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory(FDEMATEL). The fuzzy logic is merged with AHP and DEMATEL to illustrate vague judgments. Finally, the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used for ranking EDs. This approach is validated in a real 3-ED cluster. The results revealed the critical role of Infrastructure (21.5%) in ED performance and the interactive nature of Patient safety (C+R =12.771). Furthermore, this paper evidences the weaknesses to be tackled for upgrading the performance of each ED.Ortiz-Barrios, M.; Alfaro Saiz, JJ. (2020). A Hybrid Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision Making Model to Evaluate the Overall Performance of Public Emergency Departments: A Case Study. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 19(6):1485-1548. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622020500364S14851548196Lord, K., Parwani, V., Ulrich, A., Finn, E. B., Rothenberg, C., Emerson, B., … Venkatesh, A. K. (2018). Emergency department boarding and adverse hospitalization outcomes among patients admitted to a general medical service. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 36(7), 1246-1248. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2018.03.043Sørup, C. M., Jacobsen, P., & Forberg, J. L. (2013). Evaluation of emergency department performance – a systematic review on recommended performance and quality-in-care measures. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 21(1). doi:10.1186/1757-7241-21-62Farokhi, S., & Roghanian, E. (2018). Determining quantitative targets for performance measures in the balanced scorecard method using response surface methodology. Management Decision, 56(9), 2006-2037. doi:10.1108/md-08-2017-0772Ortiz Barrios, M. A., & Felizzola Jiménez, H. (2016). Use of Six Sigma Methodology to Reduce Appointment Lead-Time in Obstetrics Outpatient Department. Journal of Medical Systems, 40(10). doi:10.1007/s10916-016-0577-3Sunder M., V., Ganesh, L. S., & Marathe, R. R. (2018). A morphological analysis of research literature on Lean Six Sigma for services. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(1), 149-182. doi:10.1108/ijopm-05-2016-0273Bergeron, B. P. (2017). Performance Management in Healthcare. doi:10.4324/9781315102214Santos, S. P., Belton, V., Howick, S., & Pilkington, M. (2018). Measuring organisational performance using a mix of OR methods. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 131, 18-30. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.028Ho, W., & Ma, X. (2018). The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 267(2), 399-414. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.09.007Dargi, A., Anjomshoae, A., Galankashi, M. R., Memari, A., & Tap, M. B. M. (2014). Supplier Selection: A Fuzzy-ANP Approach. Procedia Computer Science, 31, 691-700. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.317Jing, M., Jie, Y., Shou-yi, L., & Lu, W. (2015). Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in the risk assessment of dangerous small-sized reservoirs. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 9(1), 113-123. doi:10.1007/s13042-015-0363-4Samanlioglu, F., Taskaya, Y. E., Gulen, U. C., & Cokcan, O. (2018). A Fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS-Based Group Decision-Making Approach to IT Personnel Selection. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20(5), 1576-1591. doi:10.1007/s40815-018-0474-7CHEN, M.-F., TZENG, G.-H., & TANG, T.-I. (2005). FUZZY MCDM APPROACH FOR EVALUATION OF EXPATRIATE ASSIGNMENTS. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 04(02), 277-296. doi:10.1142/s0219622005001520Gul, M., Celik, E., Gumus, A. T., & Guneri, A. F. (2016). Emergency department performance evaluation by an integrated simulation and interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM-based scenario analysis. European J. of Industrial Engineering, 10(2), 196. doi:10.1504/ejie.2016.075846Jovčić, Průša, Dobrodolac, & Švadlenka. (2019). A Proposal for a Decision-Making Tool in Third-Party Logistics (3PL) Provider Selection Based on Multi-Criteria Analysis and the Fuzzy Approach. Sustainability, 11(15), 4236. doi:10.3390/su11154236Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2012). Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6Vargas, L. G. (2016). Voting with Intensity of Preferences. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(04), 839-859. doi:10.1142/s0219622016400058Lee, K.-C., Tsai, W.-H., Yang, C.-H., & Lin, Y.-Z. (2018). An MCDM approach for selecting green aviation fleet program management strategies under multi-resource limitations. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 76-85. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.06.011Labib, A., & Read, M. (2015). A hybrid model for learning from failures: The Hurricane Katrina disaster. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(21), 7869-7881. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.06.020Hosseini, S., & Khaled, A. A. (2016). A hybrid ensemble and AHP approach for resilient supplier selection. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 30(1), 207-228. doi:10.1007/s10845-016-1241-yZavadskas, E. K., Govindan, K., Antucheviciene, J., & Turskis, Z. (2016). Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: a review of applications for sustainability issues. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29(1), 857-887. doi:10.1080/1331677x.2016.1237302Lolli, F., Balugani, E., Ishizaka, A., Gamberini, R., Butturi, M. A., Marinello, S., & Rimini, B. (2019). On the elicitation of criteria weights in PROMETHEE-based ranking methods for a mobile application. Expert Systems with Applications, 120, 217-227. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.11.030De Almeida Filho, A. T., Clemente, T. R. N., Morais, D. C., & de Almeida, A. T. (2018). Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(2), 453-461. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.08.006Sun, G., Guan, X., Yi, X., & Zhou, Z. (2018). An innovative TOPSIS approach based on hesitant fuzzy correlation coefficient and its applications. Applied Soft Computing, 68, 249-267. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2018.04.004Frazão, T. D. C., Camilo, D. G. G., Cabral, E. L. S., & Souza, R. P. (2018). Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a systematic review of the main characteristics and methodological steps. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 18(1). doi:10.1186/s12911-018-0663-1Ortiz-Barrios, M. A., Herrera-Fontalvo, Z., Rúa-Muñoz, J., Ojeda-Gutiérrez, S., De Felice, F., & Petrillo, A. (2018). An integrated approach to evaluate the risk of adverse events in hospital sector. Management Decision, 56(10), 2187-2224. doi:10.1108/md-09-2017-0917Al Salem, A. A., & Awasthi, A. (2018). Investigating rank reversal in reciprocal fuzzy preference relation based on additive consistency: Causes and solutions. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 115, 573-581. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2017.11.027Aires, R. F. de F., & Ferreira, L. (2019). A new approach to avoid rank reversal cases in the TOPSIS method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 132, 84-97. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2019.04.023Emrouznejad, A., & Yang, G. (2018). A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly literature in DEA: 1978–2016. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 61, 4-8. doi:10.1016/j.seps.2017.01.008Arya, A., & Yadav, S. P. (2017). Development of FDEA Models to Measure the Performance Efficiencies of DMUs. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20(1), 163-173. doi:10.1007/s40815-017-0325-yMufazzal, S., & Muzakkir, S. M. (2018). A new multi-criterion decision making (MCDM) method based on proximity indexed value for minimizing rank reversals. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 119, 427-438. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2018.03.045Kaliszewski, I., & Podkopaev, D. (2016). Simple additive weighting—A metamodel for multiple criteria decision analysis methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 54, 155-161. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.01.042Mousavi-Nasab, S. H., & Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2018). A new multi-criteria decision making approach for sustainable material selection problem: A critical study on rank reversal problem. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 466-484. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.062Chen, Z., Ming, X., Zhang, X., Yin, D., & Sun, Z. (2019). A rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP method for evaluating sustainable value requirement of product service system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 485-508. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.145Jumaah, F. M., Zadain, A. A., Zaidan, B. B., Hamzah, A. K., & Bahbibi, R. (2018). Decision-making solution based multi-measurement design parameter for optimization of GPS receiver tracking channels in static and dynamic real-time positioning multipath environment. Measurement, 118, 83-95. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2018.01.011Singh, A., & Prasher, A. (2017). Measuring healthcare service quality from patients’ perspective: using Fuzzy AHP application. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30(3-4), 284-300. doi:10.1080/14783363.2017.1302794Otay, İ., Oztaysi, B., Cevik Onar, S., & Kahraman, C. (2017). Multi-expert performance evaluation of healthcare institutions using an integrated intuitionistic fuzzy AHP&DEA methodology. Knowledge-Based Systems, 133, 90-106. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2017.06.028Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013Gul, M., Guneri, A. F., & Nasirli, S. M. (2018). A fuzzy-based model for risk assessment of routes in oil transportation. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 16(8), 4671-4686. doi:10.1007/s13762-018-2078-zKazancoglu, Y., Kazancoglu, I., & Sagnak, M. (2018). Fuzzy DEMATEL-based green supply chain management performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 118(2), 412-431. doi:10.1108/imds-03-2017-0121Abdullah, L., & Zulkifli, N. (2015). Integration of fuzzy AHP and interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL: An application to human resource management. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(9), 4397-4409. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.021Ashtiani, M., & Azgomi, M. A. (2016). A hesitant fuzzy model of computational trust considering hesitancy, vagueness and uncertainty. Applied Soft Computing, 42, 18-37. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2016.01.023Zyoud, S. H., & Fuchs-Hanusch, D. (2017). A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 78, 158-181. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.016Scholz, S., Ngoli, B., & Flessa, S. (2015). Rapid assessment of infrastructure of primary health care facilities – a relevant instrument for health care systems management. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1). doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0838-8Ivlev, I., Vacek, J., & Kneppo, P. (2015). Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 247(1), 216-228. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.05.075Kovacs, E., Strobl, R., Phillips, A., Stephan, A.-J., Müller, M., Gensichen, J., & Grill, E. (2018). Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Implementation Strategies for Non-communicable Disease Guidelines in Primary Health Care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(7), 1142-1154. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4435-5Morley, C., Unwin, M., Peterson, G. M., Stankovich, J., & Kinsman, L. (2018). Emergency department crowding: A systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0203316. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203316Hermann, R. M., Long, E., & Trotta, R. L. (2019). Improving Patients’ Experiences Communicating With Nurses and Providers in the Emergency Department. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 45(5), 523-530. doi:10.1016/j.jen.2018.12.001Hawley, K. L., Mazer-Amirshahi, M., Zocchi, M. S., Fox, E. R., & Pines, J. M. (2015). Longitudinal Trends in U.S. Drug Shortages for Medications Used in Emergency Departments (2001-2014). Academic Emergency Medicine, 23(1), 63-69. doi:10.1111/acem.12838Stang, A. S., Crotts, J., Johnson, D. W., Hartling, L., & Guttmann, A. (2015). Crowding Measures Associated With the Quality of Emergency Department Care: A Systematic Review. Academic Emergency Medicine, 22(6), 643-656. doi:10.1111/acem.12682Chanamool, N., & Naenna, T. (2016). Fuzzy FMEA application to improve decision-making process in an emergency department. Applied Soft Computing, 43, 441-453. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2016.01.007Farup, P. G. (2015). Are measurements of patient safety culture and adverse events valid and reliable? Results from a cross sectional study. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1). doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0852-xCarter, E. J., Pouch, S. M., & Larson, E. L. (2013). The Relationship Between Emergency Department Crowding and Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 46(2), 106-115. doi:10.1111/jnu.12055Ebben, R. H. A., Siqeca, F., Madsen, U. R., Vloet, L. C. M., & van Achterberg, T. (2018). Effectiveness of implementation strategies for the improvement of guideline and protocol adherence in emergency care: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 8(11), e017572. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017572Innes, G. D., Sivilotti, M. L. A., Ovens, H., McLelland, K., Dukelow, A., Kwok, E., … Chochinov, A. (2018). Emergency overcrowding and access block: A smaller problem than we think. CJEM, 21(2), 177-185. doi:10.1017/cem.2018.446Di Somma, S., Paladino, L., Vaughan, L., Lalle, I., Magrini, L., & Magnanti, M. (2014). Overcrowding in emergency department: an international issue. Internal and Emergency Medicine, 10(2), 171-175. doi:10.1007/s11739-014-1154-8Uthman, O. A., Walker, C., Lahiri, S., Jenkinson, D., Adekanmbi, V., Robertson, W., & Clarke, A. (2018). General practitioners providing non-urgent care in emergency department: a natural experiment. BMJ Open, 8(5), e019736. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019736Razzak, J. A., Baqir, S. M., Khan, U. R., Heller, D., Bhatti, J., & Hyder, A. A. (2013). Emergency and trauma care in Pakistan: a cross-sectional study of healthcare levels. Emergency Medicine Journal, 32(3), 207-213. doi:10.1136/emermed-2013-202590Dart, R. C., Goldfrank, L. R., Erstad, B. L., Huang, D. T., Todd, K. H., Weitz, J., … Anderson, V. E. (2018). Expert Consensus Guidelines for Stocking of Antidotes in Hospitals That Provide Emergency Care. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 71(3), 314-325.e1. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.05.021Mkoka, D. A., Goicolea, I., Kiwara, A., Mwangu, M., & Hurtig, A.-K. (2014). Availability of drugs and medical supplies for emergency obstetric care: experience of health facility managers in a rural District of Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 14(1). doi:10.1186/1471-2393-14-108Beck, M. J., Okerblom, D., Kumar, A., Bandyopadhyay, S., & Scalzi, L. V. (2016). Lean intervention improves patient discharge times, improves emergency department throughput and reduces congestion. Hospital Practice, 44(5), 252-259. doi:10.1080/21548331.2016.1254559Morais Oliveira, M., Marti, C., Ramlawi, M., Sarasin, F. P., Grosgurin, O., Poletti, P.-A., … Rutschmann, O. T. (2018). Impact of a patient-flow physician coordinator on waiting times and length of stay in an emergency department: A before-after cohort study. PLOS ONE, 13(12), e0209035. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209035Vermeulen, M. J., Stukel, T. A., Boozary, A. S., Guttmann, A., & Schull, M. J. (2016). The Effect of Pay for Performance in the Emergency Department on Patient Waiting Times and Quality of Care in Ontario, Canada: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 67(4), 496-505.e7. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.06.028Singh, S., Lin, Y.-L., Nattinger, A. B., Kuo, Y.-F., & Goodwin, J. S. (2015). Variation in readmission rates by emergency departments and emergency department providers caring for patients after discharge. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 10(11), 705-710. doi:10.1002/jhm.2407Källberg, A.-S., Göransson, K. E., Florin, J., Östergren, J., Brixey, J. J., & Ehrenberg, A. (2015). Contributing factors to errors in Swedish emergency departments. International Emergency Nursing, 23(2), 156-161. doi:10.1016/j.ienj.2014.10.002Riga, M., Vozikis, A., Pollalis, Y., & Souliotis, K. (2015). MERIS (Medical Error Reporting Information System) as an innovative patient safety intervention: A health policy perspective. Health Policy, 119(4), 539-548. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.12.006Norman, G. R., Monteiro, S. D., Sherbino, J., Ilgen, J. S., Schmidt, H. G., & Mamede, S. (2017). The Causes of Errors in Clinical Reasoning. Academic Medicine, 92(1), 23-30. doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001421Lisbon, D., Allin, D., Cleek, C., Roop, L., Brimacombe, M., Downes, C., & Pingleton, S. K. (2014). Improved Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors After Implementation of TeamSTEPPS Training in an Academic Emergency Department. American Journal of Medical Quality, 31(1), 86-90. doi:10.1177/1062860614545123Li, L., Georgiou, A., Vecellio, E., Eigenstetter, A., Toouli, G., Wilson, R., & Westbrook, J. I. (2015). The Effect of Laboratory Testing on Emergency Department Length of Stay: A Multihospital Longitudinal Study Applying a Cross‐classified Random‐effect Modeling Approach. Academic Emergency Medicine, 22(1), 38-46. doi:10.1111/acem.12565Telem, D. A., Yang, J., Altieri, M., Patterson, W., Peoples, B., Chen, H., … Pryor, A. D. (2016). Rates and Risk Factors for Unplanned Emergency Department Utilization and Hospital Readmission Following Bariatric Surgery. Annals of Surgery, 263(5), 956-960. doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000001536Rigobello, M. C. G., Carvalho, R. E. F. L. de, Guerreiro, J. M., Motta, A. P. G., Atila, E., & Gimenes, F. R. E. (2017). The perception of the patient safety climate by professionals of the emergency department. International Emergency Nursing, 33, 1-6. doi:10.1016/j.ienj.2017.03.003Farmer, B. (2016). Patient Safety in the Emergency Department. Emergency Medicine, 48(9), 396-404. doi:10.12788/emed.2016.0052Liu, H.-C., You, J.-X., Zhen, L., & Fan, X.-J. (2014). A novel hybrid multiple criteria decision making model for material selection with target-based criteria. Materials & Design, 60, 380-390. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2014.03.071Kou, G., Ergu, D., & Shang, J. (2014). Enhancing data consistency in decision matrix: Adapting Hadamard model to mitigate judgment contradiction. European Journal of Operational Research, 236(1), 261-271. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.11.035Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2017). Supplier evaluation and selection in fuzzy environments: a review of MADM approaches. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 30(1), 1073-1118. doi:10.1080/1331677x.2017.1314828Barrios, M. A. O., De Felice, F., Negrete, K. P., Romero, B. A., Arenas, A. Y., & Petrillo, A. (2016). An AHP-Topsis Integrated Model for Selecting the Most Appropriate Tomography Equipment. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(04), 861-885. doi:10.1142/s021962201640006xYeh, D.-Y., & Cheng, C.-H. (2016). Performance Management of Taiwan’s National Hospitals. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(01), 187-213. doi:10.1142/s0219622014500199Chen, T.-Y. (2014). An Interactive Signed Distance Approach for Multiple Criteria Group Decision-Making Based on Simple Additive Weighting Method with Incomplete Preference Information Defined by Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 13(05), 979-1012. doi:10.1142/s0219622014500229Gou, X., Xu, Z., & Liao, H. (2019). Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Possibility Degree-Based Linear Assignment Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 18(01), 35-63. doi:10.1142/s0219622017500377Saksrisathaporn, K., Bouras, A., Reeveerakul, N., & Charles, A. (2016). Application of a Decision Model by Using an Integration of AHP and TOPSIS Approaches within Humanitarian Operation Life Cycle. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(04), 887-918. doi:10.1142/s0219622015500261Hsiao, B., & Chen, L.-H. (2019). Performance Evaluation for Taiwanese Hospitals by Multi-Activity Network Data Envelopment Analysis. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 18(03), 1009-1043. doi:10.1142/s0219622018500165Saaty, T. L., & Ergu, D. (2015). When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 14(06), 1171-1187. doi:10.1142/s021962201550025xChang, K.-H., Chang, Y.-C., & Lee, Y.-T. (2014). Integrating TOPSIS and DEMATEL Methods to Rank the Risk of Failure of FMEA. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 13(06), 1229-1257. doi:10.1142/s0219622014500758Yeh, T.-M., & Huang, Y.-L. (2014). Factors in determining wind farm location: Integrating GQM, fuzzy DEMATEL, and ANP. Renewable Energy, 66, 159-169. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.003Ortíz, M. A., Felizzola, H. A., & Isaza, S. N. (2015). A contrast between DEMATEL-ANP an

A Decision Making System for Selecting Sustainable Technologies for Retail Buildings

CIB Publication 382: Selected papers presented at the CIB World Building Congres Construction and Society, Brisbane 5-9 May 2013 Papers from the Designated Session TG66 - Energy and the Built EnvironmentThe implementation of sustainable technologies can improve the energy and carbon efficiency of existing retail buildings. However, the selection of an appropriate sustainable technology is a complex task due to the large number of technological alternatives and decision criteria that need to be considered. Also, there exist series of uncertainties that are associated with the use of sustainable technologies, but have to be evaluated to achieve realistic and transparent results. The selection of sustainable technology is therefore most challenging. An earlier study was conducted with UK experienced practitioners including clients/developers, engineers, contractors and suppliers to identify the drivers and barriers for the use of sustainable technologies in UK retail construction. One major barrier identified from the study was the lack of a decision making tool, highlighted by both construction professionals and stakeholders in the retail industry. The large number of alternatives and potential solutions require a decision support method to be implemented. Information data on the economic variables, energy performance and impact on the environment of these systems is presently affected by vagueness and lack of knowledge. To deal with this high level of complexity and uncertainty an evaluation support approach is needed. This paper aims to develop a decision making framework to assist both retailers and construction professionals to define and evaluate the selection of sustainable technological options for delivering retail buildings. The research was carried out through a combination of a critical literature review and a survey-based study using expert opinions of retailers and contractors. The developed framework of decision criteria should provide a sustainable technology model to assist both construction professionals and stakeholders in the retail industry to systematically and effectively select the most appropriate technology. This approach should make the decision progression more transparent and facilitate sustainable development of retail buildings in achieving the carbon targets set by the UK and other governments