Theses and Dissertations

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/10217/100391

Browse

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5

Open Access
A framework for assessing transportation sustainability rating systems for implementation in U.S. state departments of transportation
(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2013) Simpson, Sherona Patrice, author; Clevenger, Caroline M., advisor; Ozbek, Mehmet E., advisor; Atadero, Rebecca A., committee member
Sustainability has increased in popularity as a key indicator for planning transportation projects. With that movement, evaluating the sustainability of transportation projects has become necessary for state departments of transportation (DOTs). Transportation Sustainability Rating Systems (TSRS) have been adopted for this purpose; however, different TSRSs employ different methods for determining or quantifying sustainability, and emphasize different sustainability factors. Given the number, variability, and specificity of TSRSs available, an evaluation and pairing exercise of available systems is needed to help the state DOTs select a system by determining to what extent a given system suits the state DOT's preferences. This thesis presents a four step framework which identifies the most important capabilities in a TSRS as preferred by a state DOT and then facilitates weighting of those capabilities via a well-established methodology, the Analytical Hierarchy Process. The thesis also presents the implementation of this framework for Colorado DOT (CDOT), South Dakota DOT (SDDOT), Utah DOT (UDOT) and Wyoming DOT (WYDOT). The framework resulted in the identification of INVEST to be the most suitable TSRS for CDOT and WYDOT, GreenLITES as the most suitable TSRS for SDDOT and the results for UDOT were inconclusive. The framework developed for assessing TSRSs was proven to be a viable means for determining rank and suitability of TSRS for DOTs.
Open Access
Bid or no bid decision making tool using analytic hierarchy process
(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2016) Akalp, Duygu, author; Ozbek, Mehmet E., advisor; Senior, Bolivar, committee member; Atadero, Rebecca A., committee member
In today's competitive business environment, every construction company confronts a decision-making dilemma and must decide whether to bid or not bid on a project(s) or which project(s) to bid on among candidates. Even though the decision-makers come to the conclusion with different judgments, a final evaluation always requires putting different factors into consideration and contemplating the ups and downs of a project. Therefore, bid or no bid decision is complex and crucial for construction companies. The complexity comes from the consideration of many intangible and tangible factors in the decision-making process (Mohanty 1992). Decision-making is hard because it requires a decision-maker to construct a structured thinking to include many unknown, yet complex variables and compare them simultaneously. Decision-making is crucial because poorly made bidding decisions could cause severe and irrevocable problems. For example, not bidding a favorable project could result in lost opportunities for companies to make profit, improve contractor's strength in the industry and gain a long-term relationship with a new client. On the other hand, bidding a project that actually does not fit the company's profile requires a lot of time, effort, and commitment without a favorable outcome (Ahmad 1990, Wanous et al. 2003). Given that "competitive bidding" is the most common bidding method in the construction industry among others (e.g., negotiated contracts, package deals, private finance initiative), investigating bidding strategies has been a focal point by researchers (Harris et al. 2006). Furthermore, more than 100 key factors that influence bidding decisions have been determined to date since the mid-1950s. Simultaneously, to expedite the process, numerous decision-making models have been proposed. Despite the excessive availability of the factors and decision-making models, the facilitation rate of the subsidiary tools in the evaluation process in the construction industry is very little. According to a survey by Ahmad & Minkarah (1988), only 11.1 percent of the construction companies use a decision making tool in order to come to a bid or not bid conclusion in the United States. The ultimate purpose of this study is to develop a practical decision-making tool to assist decision makers in the construction industry to select the most appropriate projects to bid on using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Based on the collected demographic information (e.g., sector, size, type), the combined importance weights of the construction professionals are also presented in the study. Finally, the statistically significant differences between different groups of construction companies in how much weight they assign to a given bid/no bid decision factor is investigated. In reaching the abovementioned purpose, the following questions are addressed: • What are the most common key factors that influence bid/no bid decisions? • How can different judgments from different decision-makers be combined into one final decision? • How differently the construction companies in the United States (US) value the key factors that are commonly utilized to make bid/no bid decisions? The validation of the bid/no bid decision-making tool was performed based on two participants' responses; and the tool provided accurate results for one of the evaluations. Because of insufficient response rate to the validation process, it cannot be concluded that the bid/no bid decision-making tool is validated; however the results of the participants point out the need for further research. The results showed that the compliance with the business plan and location of the project factors were found statistically significantly different for the "Contractor Type" classification. On the contrary, none of the key factors was found statistically significantly different for the "Contractor Sector" groups. For the "Contractor Size" classification, the compliance with the business plan factor was found statistically significantly different. The Group AHP approach allows construction companies to come with a combined bidding judgment instead of using the tool individually. As a major finding of this study is that, the contractors grouped under each construction classifications (i.e., Contractor Type, Contractor Sector and Contractor Size) put more value on the overall firm related-internal factors than the overall project related-external factors based on the Group AHP results. It is also found that the project duration and project size key factors have the lowest weights for all contractor classification groups. This study contributes to the construction engineering and management body of knowledge by providing an user friendly decision-making tool to be used in deciding whether to bid or not bid on a project or which project(s) to bid on and advancing the current state of the knowledge on the different weights/values given to the factors by construction companies with different demographics.
Open Access
Comparative assessment of transportation sustainability rating systems
(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2018) Oluwalaiye, Oluwatobi Temitope, author; Ozbel, Mehmet E., advisor; Olbina, Svetlana, committee member; Atadero, Rebecca A., committee member
The construction industry contributes a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions to the environment. This highlights the need for this industry to implement sustainable practices to mitigate its negative effects. In the transportation sector of the construction industry, several transportation sustainability rating systems (TSRS) have been developed to measure and promote sustainability. However, studies show that these TSRS have not been developed within a consistent "sustainability scope". This raises the question of the consistency of these TSRS in measuring sustainability of transportation projects. This study assessed three prominent TSRS to determine how each measure sustainability with respect to the triple bottom line. The TSRS that are in the scope of this study are: ENVISION – a third-party rating system, INVEST – a self-assessed rating system and, GreenLITES – an in-house developed self-assessed rating system. The results show that these three rating systems assess and reward sustainability practices differently. Additionally, results suggest that it may be easier for a project to get awarded in GreenLITES compared to the other two TSRS. Notwithstanding all the above, a consistency was noted in all three rating systems in the Quality of Life/Social performance of projects. This study helps inform stakeholders in the transportation industry on how transportation projects perform when run through each of these rating systems. This will help stakeholders make informed decisions with respect to choosing one (or more) TSRS to assess their projects with and evaluating the results obtained from such TSRS.
Open Access
Positioning of anchors for personal fall arrest systems for sloped roofs
(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2019) Heidari, Azin, author; Olbina, Svetlana, advisor; Glick, Scott, advisor; Atadero, Rebecca A., committee member
Construction worker falls account for about one-third of all construction fatalities increasing 53% from 2011 to 2015 with most fatalities in the roofing trade. A personal fall arrest system (PFAS) is an effective means of fall protection and required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). However, PFAS anchor point placement is an issue evidenced by the number of fatalities caused by incorrect anchor positioning (Hinze and Olbina, 2008). This research looks at a process to create a tool to optimize PFAS anchor points by: 1) Converting OSHA and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) regulations and standards for anchor point positions into computer-readable format; and 2) Developing a tool for optimization of locations of anchor points. A qualified field user performs the tool data input. Data include PFAS features (e.g. lanyard length) and project-related values (e.g. roof height). The tool then looks for the potential anchor locations that satisfy the fall clearance and swing hazard requirements. K-Nearest Neighbor Search (KNNS) algorithm was used as the optimization model for the tool. The tool was developed in Python programming language and was compiled into a standalone computer application with a user-friendly interface. The output of the tool includes optimized anchor points displayed both graphically and numerically. The tool results were validated using the K-fold Cross-Validation method and proved the tool output results to be adequately accurate. The contribution of this research is the development of an automated field-level process for steep sloped roofing companies that would help improve their safety practices.
Open Access
Understanding public perceptions of different options to fund the highway system
(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2014) Albeiruti, Nasser T., author; Ozbek, Mehmet E., advisor; Senior, Bolivar A., committee member; Atadero, Rebecca A., committee member
The purpose of this research was to generate an understanding of the public perceptions of different revenue generation systems that are already in use or that have the potential to be used in the future, and to educate the public on the different revenue generation systems. In addition, this study tested a number of hypotheses that were focused on finding relationships (correlations) between the choice of funding option to support the highway system in the United States and the demographic information. A survey method was used to explore this topic. The survey instrument was sent to 15,945 people representing five states: Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming (Mountain-Plains Consortium states) via mail. Only 1,190 surveys were received, 27 were eliminated due to various issues, and 1,163 were posted as completed surveys resulting in a response rate of 7.30 %. Data analysis of the results consisted of performing descriptive and inferential statistics and running chi-square tests for correlation analysis. The results of this survey indicate that the public in the states of Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming selected "increasing the federal gas tax that is collected at the time of purchase" as their first choice of funding option. The support for the use of highway tolling to fund the highway system was somewhat moderate among the population across the five states. The collection of additional sales tax on all goods to fund the highway system was unpopular funding mechanism among the population in the five states. Similarly, the support for the use of mileage-based user fees was disliked among the population in the five states. This research is significant, as few studies have been done on understanding the public perceptions of different options to fund the highway systems. Furthermore the findings of this survey could be used by the law-makers in the five states under study to make better decisions with respect to the alternative options of funding the highway system in their state based on the general public's perceptions in the state. Future research could be aimed to study the impact of the utilized option on each state with regard to its social, economic, and behavioral issues that could result from its implementation.

Browse

Browsing Theses and Dissertations by Author "Atadero, Rebecca A., committee member"