Decision Support Systems for Managing Construction Projects: A Scientific Evolution Analysis

The dynamic nature and increasing complexity of construction projects impose many challenges for project planning and control. For years, there has been a debate about the success of construction projects and how to achieve them. A bibliometric study was developed based on 750 scientific papers on project success, decision support system, optimization, and project performance. Data are collected from the Scopus and Web of Science databases and cover the period from January 2000 to February 2022. Several types of analysis were made—data information, research growth, most productive country, most productive institution, most relevant source, most influential authors, collaborations between countries, institutions, authors, most relevant or most cited publication, highest frequency, and keyword occurrence. It is pointed out which are the important authors and journals and in which direction further research should be directed. This paper identifies that construction is one of the least digitized industries in the world. There is a great need for more studies on the organizational changes necessary for digitization and how to evaluate and implement digital technologies to support business on the construction site.

[1]  Juan Pedro Otaduy,et al.  Challenges for Digitalisation in Building Renovation to Enhance the Efficiency of the Process: A Spanish Case Study , 2021, Sustainability.

[2]  Weng Marc Lim,et al.  How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines , 2021 .

[3]  Xianhai Meng,et al.  APPLICATION OF MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS IN CONSTRUCTION: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW , 2021, JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT.

[4]  F. Manzano-Agugliaro,et al.  The Bibliometric Literature on Scopus and WoS: The Medicine and Environmental Sciences Categories as Case of Study , 2021, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[5]  K. I. Zakariyyah,et al.  Cultural orientations and strategic capability for the adoption of building information modeling in construction firms , 2021, Engineering Reports.

[6]  Niksa Jajac,et al.  A Sustainable Approach for the Maintenance of Asphalt Pavement Construction , 2020, Sustainability.

[7]  Peng Jing,et al.  A literature review on accessibility using bibliometric analysis techniques , 2020 .

[8]  Saïd Echchakoui,et al.  Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales force literature from 1912 to 2019 , 2020 .

[9]  Nees Jan van Eck,et al.  Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic , 2020, Quantitative Science Studies.

[10]  Naveen Donthu,et al.  Forty-five years of Journal of Business Research: A bibliometric analysis , 2020 .

[11]  Grégoire Côté,et al.  Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies , 2020, Quantitative Science Studies.

[12]  Mpeoane Judith Nkeli,et al.  Bibliometric Analysis on Smart Cities Research , 2019, Sustainability.

[13]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  A Method for Database Model Selection , 2019, BPMDS/EMMSAD@CAiSE.

[14]  Weishu Liu,et al.  The secrets behind Web of Science’s DOI search , 2019, Scientometrics.

[15]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[16]  Bart Thijs,et al.  Use of locality sensitive hashing (LSH) algorithm to match Web of Science and Scopus , 2018, Scientometrics.

[17]  Jian Mou,et al.  Knowledge mapping of social commerce research: a visual analysis using CiteSpace , 2018, Electronic Commerce Research.

[18]  Zildo Gallo,et al.  Educação a Distância: Contribuições da Modalidade para uma Qualificação Empreendedora , 2017 .

[19]  Kai Li,et al.  Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: a selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis , 2017, Scientometrics.

[20]  M. Aria,et al.  bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[21]  Kristine M. Alpi,et al.  Bibliometric Network Analysis and Visualization for Serials Librarians: An Introduction to Sci2 , 2017 .

[22]  L. Chai,et al.  A bibliometric analysis on the performance and underlying dynamic patterns of water security research , 2016, Scientometrics.

[23]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Analysis and visualization of large networks with program package Pajek , 2016, Complex Adapt. Syst. Model..

[24]  Adèle Paul-Hus,et al.  The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis , 2015, Scientometrics.

[25]  Harris L Cohen,et al.  Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis. , 2015, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[26]  Ivica Završki,et al.  Ranking zones model – a multicriterial approach to the spatial management of urban areas , 2015 .

[27]  Marko Mladineo,et al.  Planning support concept to implementation of sustainable parking development projects in ancient Mediterranean cities , 2014 .

[28]  Ivan Zupic,et al.  Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization , 2014 .

[29]  Serdar Kale,et al.  Benchmarking the Knowledge Management Practices of Construction Firms , 2012 .

[30]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping , 2009, Scientometrics.

[31]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  Calculating the h-index and other bibliometric and scientometric indicators from Google Scholar with the Publish or Perish software , 2009, Online Inf. Rev..

[32]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[33]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[34]  A. Booth,et al.  A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[35]  Yacine Rezgui,et al.  Knowledge informed decision making in the building lifecycle : an application to the design of a water drainage system , 2007 .

[36]  P. G. van der Velden,et al.  Selective attrition and bias in a longitudinal health survey among survivors of a disaster , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[37]  Marjori Matzke,et al.  F1000Prime recommendation of An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. , 2005 .

[38]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[39]  P. Seglen.  Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research , 1997, BMJ.

[40]  Raminta Pranckute,et al.  Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today's Academic World , 2021, Publ..

[41]  J. Rubio-Romero,et al.  Overall Introduction to the Framework of BIM-based Digital Twinning in Decision-making in Safety Management in Building Construction Industry , 2021, Dirección y Organización.

[42]  M. D. L. C. D. R. Rama,et al.  Bibliometric analysis of publications on wine tourism in the databases Scopus and WoS , 2017 .

[43]  Leo Egghe,et al.  Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..