Strategic Implementation of Infrastructure Priority Projects: Case Study in Palestine

A strategy was developed for implementation and management of multisector urban infrastructure projects. The strategy includes risk-based analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for project prioritization that is based on project deliverables and project life-cycle and implementation guidelines. The expert-opinion elicitation process used for this study consists of a variation of the Delphi technique, scenario analysis, civil works, and nuclear industry recommendations. The AHP methodology utilizes a multicriteria decision-making technique that allows the consideration of both objective and subjective factors in obtaining cardinal priority ranking of infrastructure projects. The methodology, which deals with different fields of infrastructure, can incorporate uncertainty in the process and can be implemented using simple spreadsheet format. The methodology was developed for a group of players (methodology implementers) involved in implementation and management of urban infrastructure projects. These include the decision makers, the stakeholders who can influence the decision and/or be affected by it, and the analysts. The methodology was demonstrated in this paper using real-life applications for effectiveness in prioritizing infrastructure projects from mixed infrastructure sectors in Palestine.

[1]  T. Alhazmi,et al.  Project Procurement System Selection Model , 2000 .

[2]  Lucien Duckstein,et al.  Ranking water resource projects and evaluating criteria by multicriterion Q-analysis: an Austrian case study , 1997 .

[3]  Robert L. K. Tiong BOT projects: Risks and securities , 1990 .

[4]  Bilal M. Ayyub,et al.  Decision analysis for housing-project development , 1999 .

[5]  M. A. Mustafa,et al.  Project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy process , 1991 .

[6]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[7]  Carlos A. Bana e Costa,et al.  The use of multi‐criteria decision analysis to support the search for less conflicting policy options in a multi‐actor context: case study , 2001 .

[8]  M. Kerf,et al.  Concessions for Infrastructure: A Guide to Their Design and Award , 1998 .

[9]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making with dependence and feedback : the analytic network process : the organization and prioritization of complexity , 1996 .

[10]  Maurice Bryson,et al.  Probability, Statistics, and Reliability for Engineers , 1997, Technometrics.

[11]  Simon French,et al.  Multi-Objective Decision Analysis with Engineering and Business Applications , 1983 .

[12]  Olaf Helmer,et al.  ANALYSIS OF THE FUTURE: THE DELPHI METHOD , 1967 .

[13]  Radhika Santhanam,et al.  Using the analytic hierarchy process for information system project selection , 1990, Inf. Manag..

[14]  T. L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making with dependence and feedback , 2001 .

[15]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  Towards an integrated approach for sustainable city planning , 2000 .

[16]  Paul Gruhn The pros and cons of qualitative & quantitative analysis of safety systems , 1991 .

[17]  Qian Wang,et al.  Priority setting in maintenance management: a modified multi-attribute approach using analytic hierarchy process , 1998 .

[18]  Bilal M. Ayyub,et al.  A Practical Guide on Conducting Expert-Opinion Elicitation of Probabilities and Consequences for Corps Facilities , 2001 .

[19]  A. Walker MSc PhD Frics Project Management in Construction , 1984 .