A Decision Support System for Hospital Configurations in Construction Projects
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Configuration Decisions in Construction Projects
1.2. Hospital Configurations
1.3. Decision Support Systems
1.4. Contribution to Sustainable Development
2. Objective
- A knowledge base from reviews of literature
- Model management using an ER diagram for a relational database
- Data management by proposing relevant IFC schemas for building model exchange
- A case study investigated gaps in current practice compared to the ER model
- Which information is required for hospital configuration decisions?
- How are hospital configuration data related?
- Which IFC schemas are relevant for configuration information exchange?
- What information is available in current construction projects delivering MRI rooms?
3. Method
- Problem definition establishes a knowledge base (variables) and model management (variable relationships), while the solving phase defines data management (domain limitations) and user interface (predictions) [42]. The knowledge base was the ISO 10007 guidelines [1] and a literature review, which defined variables required for configuration decisions. This knowledge was compiled in a decision flow chart.
- Model management contained variables for configuration decision support presented as an ER model for a relational database describing entities, attributes, and relationships.
- The domain limitations for sharing the data were studied. Identification of relevant IFC schemas for each attribute in the ER model ensures data exchange regarding configuration decisions.
- The decision interface in this study consisted of empirical investigations of available information for decisions about MRI room configurations compared to the proposed decision system.
3.1. Determine Configuration Decision Flow
3.2. Establish an Entity-Relationship Model
3.3. Identify Relevant IFC Exchange Schemas
3.4. Empirical Studies of Operational Gaps
4. Results
4.1. Decision Flow Chart
- Functions that constitute the baseline configuration.
- Design of solutions fulfilling the functions.
- Predefinition of production methods that ensure implementation of the solutions.
- Establishing of acceptance values and measurement methods for verification of the baseline configuration.
- Change control to ensure functions according to the intentions of the baseline configuration.
4.2. Entity-Relationship Model
4.3. Proposed IFC Exchange Schemas
4.4. Operational Gaps
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- ISO 10007: 2017; Quality Management—Guidelines for Configuration Management. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
- Hairstans, R.; Smith, R.E. Offsite HUB (Scotland): Establishing a collaborative regional framework for knowledge exchange in the UK. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2018, 14, 60–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shou, W.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Chong, H. A Comparative Review of Building Information Modelling Implementation in Building and Infrastructure Industries. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2015, 22, 291–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, C.; Mehrsai, A.; Barros, A.C.; Araújo, M.; Ares, E. Towards Industry 4.0: An overview of European strategic roadmaps. In Proceedings of the 7th Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference (MESIC), Vigo, Spain, 28–30 June 2017; pp. 972–979. [Google Scholar]
- Van Hoof, J.; Rutten, P.G.S.; Struck, C.; Huisman, E.R.C.M.; Kort, H.S.M. The integrated and evidence-based design of healthcare environments. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2015, 11, 243–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadpour, A.; Karan, E.; Asadi, S. Artificial intelligence techniques to support design and construction. In Proceedings of the 36th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Banff, AB, Canada, 21–24 May 2019; pp. 1282–1289. [Google Scholar]
- Larsen, J.K.; Shen, G.Q.; Lindhard, S.M.; Brunoe, T.D. Factors affecting schedule delay, cost overrun, and quality level in public construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 04015032-1–04015032-10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maskuriy, R.; Selamat, A.; Ali, K.N.; Maresova, P.; Krejcar, O. Industry 4.0 for the Construction Industry—How Ready Is the Industry? Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pärn, E.A.; Edwards, D.J.; Sing, M.C.P. The building information modelling trajectory in facilities management: A review. Autom. Constr. 2017, 75, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.W.; Cha, S.H.; Kim, Y. A framework for evaluating user involvement methods in architectural, engineering, and construction projects. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2016, 59, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, P.A.; Maslesa, E. Value based building renovation—A tool for decision-making and evaluation. Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aljohani, A.; Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.; Moore, D. Construction projects cost overrun: What does the literature tell us? Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. 2017, 8, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eleftheriadis, S.; Duffour, P.; Mumovic, D. Participatory decision-support model in the context of building structural design embedding BIM with QFD. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2018, 38, 695–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parvan, K.; Rahmandad, H.; Haghani, A. Inter-phase feedbacks in construction projects. J. Oper. Manag. 2015, 39–40, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chun, J.; Cho, J. QFD model based on a suitability assessment for the reduction of design changes in unsatisfactory quality. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2015, 14, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monticolo, D.; Badin, J.; Gomes, S.; Bonjour, E.; Chamoret, D. A meta-model for knowledge configuration management to support collaborative engineering. Comput. Ind. 2015, 66, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, H.T.; Lin, C.P.; Lin, Y.C. Applications of configuration management in BIM Models management during the construction phase. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBE), Osaka, Japan, 6–8 July 2016; pp. 593–600. [Google Scholar]
- Schneider, P. Managerial challenges of Industry 4.0: An empirically backed research agenda for a nascent field. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2018, 12, 803–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adam, A.; Josephson, P.-E.B.; Lindahl, G. Aggregation of factors causing cost overruns and time delays in large public construction projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017, 24, 393–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viana, D.; Tommelein, I.; Formoso, C. Using Modularity to Reduce Complexity of Industrialized Building Systems for Mass Customization. Energies 2017, 10, 1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craveiro, F.; Duarte, J.P.; Bartolo, H.; Bartolo, P.J. Additive manufacturing as an enabling technology for digital construction: A perspective on Construction 4.0. Autom. Constr. 2019, 103, 251–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, S.; Oldfield, P.; Mullins, B.J.; Pollard, B.; Criado-Perez, C. Evidence Based Practice for the Built Environment: Can Systematic Reviews Close the Researc-Practice Gap? Procedia Eng. 2017, 180, 912–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adam, A.; Lindahl, G.; Leiringer, R. The dynamic capabilities of public construction clients in the healthcare sector. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2019, 13, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrova, E.; Pauwels, P.; Svidt, K.; Jensen, R.L. Towards data-driven sustainable design: Decision support based on knowledge discovery in disparate building data. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2019, 15, 334–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sitharam, T.G.; Sebastian, R.; Fazil, F. Vibration isolation of buildings housed with sensitive equipment using open trenches—Case study and numerical simulations. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 115, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Havsteen, I.; Ohlhues, A.; Madsen, K.H.; Nybing, J.D.; Christensen, H.; Christensen, A. Are Movement Artifacts in Magnetic Resonance Imaging a Real Problem?—A Narrative Review. Front. Neurol. 2017, 8, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Foreman, J. Medical office building structural design considerations. In Proceedings of the Structures Congress, Orlando, FL, USA, 24–27 April 2019; pp. 23–29. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, M.W.Y.; Wesolowsky, M.J. Controlling construction-induced vibrations in healthcare facilities. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Vibration Engineering and Technology of Machinery (VETOMAC), Lisbon, Portugal, 10–13 September 2018; pp. 10003-1–10003-5. [Google Scholar]
- Wesolowsky, M.J.; Wong, M.W.Y.; Busch, T.A.; Swallow, J.C. The day the earth shook: Controlling construction-induced vibrations in sensitive occupancies. In Proceedings of the 35th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Garden Grove, CA, USA, 30 January–2 February 2017; pp. 321–327. [Google Scholar]
- Pridham, B.; Walters, N. Protection of critical assets from the effects of ground vibrations. In Proceedings of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series (CPSEMS), Indianapolis, IN, USA, 4–7 June 2018; pp. 159–167. [Google Scholar]
- Olawumi, T.O.; Chan, D.W.M. Building information modelling and project information management framework for construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 53–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakayama, R.S.; de Mesquita Spínola, M.; Silva, J.R. Towards I4.0: A comprehensive analysis of evolution from I3.0. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 144, 106453-1–106453-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 16739-1: 2018; Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) for Data Sharing in the Construction and Facility Management Industries—Part 1: Data Schema. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
- Marcher, C.; Giusti, A.; Matt, D.T. Decision Support in Building Construction: A Systematic Review of Methods and Application Areas. Buildings 2020, 10, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Power, D.J. Decision Support Systems: Concepts and Resources for Managers; Greenwood Publishing Group: Westport, CT, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Arnott, D.; Pervan, G. A Critical Analysis of Decision Support Systems Research. J. Inf. Technol. 2005, 20, 67–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Power, D.J.; Cyphert, D.; Roth, R.M. Analytics, bias, and evidence: The quest for rational decision making. J. Decis. Syst. 2019, 28, 120–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph, J.; Gaba, V. Organizational structure, information processing, and decision-making: A retrospective and road map for research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2020, 14, 267–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frisk, J.E.; Bannister, F. Improving the use of analytics and big data by changing the decision-making culture: A design approach. Manag. Decis. 2017, 55, 2074–2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN. Sustainable Development Goals. 2021. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabledevelopmentgoals (accessed on 30 September 2021).
- Hicks, C.; McGovern, T.; Prior, G.; Smith, I. Applying lean principles to the design of healthcare facilities. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 170, 677–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, H. Strategic decision analysis: Applied decision analysis and its role in the strategic management process. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 139–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenhardt, K.M. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PRISMA. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. 2022. Available online: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- MathWorks. Text Analytics Toolbox™ User’s Guide 2020b. 2020. Available online: https://se.mathworks.com/help/pdf_doc/textanalytics/textanalytics_ug.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2021).
- Wacker, J.G. A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. J. Oper. Manag. 1998, 16, 361–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preece, A.D. Towards a methodology for evaluating expert systems. Expert Syst. 1990, 7, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osipova, V.V.; Chudinov, I.L.; Seidova, A.S. Formalized Approach in Relational Database Design. Key Eng. Mater. 2016, 685, 930–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moody, D.L. Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: Current state and future directions. Data Knowl. Eng. 2005, 55, 243–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borenstein, D. Towards a practical method to validate decision support systems. Decis. Support Syst. 1998, 23, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seawright, J.; Gerring, J. Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Res. Q. 2008, 61, 294–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Autodesk. Autodesk Revit. 2016. Available online: https://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2016/ENU/ (accessed on 23 August 2022).
- Abdul Nabi, M.; El-adaway, I.H. Modular Construction: Determining Decision-Making Factors and Future Research Needs. J. Manag. Eng. 2020, 36, 04020085-1–04020085-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arroyo, P.; Mourgues, C.; Flager, F.; Correa, M.G. A new method for applying choosing by advantages (CBA) multicriteria decision to a large number of design alternatives. Energy Build. 2018, 167, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, F.; Denis Granja, A.; Fregola, A.; Picchi, F.; Portioli Staudacher, A. Understanding Relative Importance of Barriers to Improving the Customer–Supplier Relationship within Construction Supply Chains Using DEMATEL Technique. J. Manag. Eng. 2019, 35, 04019002-1–04019002-13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farajmandi, M.; Ali, M.; Hermann, R.; AbouRizk, S. A decision support tool for planning module installation in industrial construction. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 2615–2641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.; Hasan, S.; Bouferguene, A.; Al-Hussein, M.; Kosa, J. An integrated decision support model for selecting the most feasible crane at heavy construction sites. Autom. Constr. 2018, 87, 188–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jassim, H.S.H.; Krantz, J.; Lu, W.; Olofsson, T. A model to reduce earthmoving impacts. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 490–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, P.L.; Elmughrabi, W.; Dao, T.-M.; Chaabane, A. Present focuses and future directions of decision-making in construction supply chain management: A systematic review. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 20, 490–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.W.; Shen, P.F.; Lee, B.J. CAD of human resource configuration in project scheduling for construction engineering applications. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2018, 26, 1255–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, B.; Flager, F.L.; Wu, J. A method to optimize mobile crane and crew interactions to minimize construction cost and time. Autom. Constr. 2018, 95, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schönbeck, P.; Löfsjögård, M.; Ansell, A. Framework for change control in healthcare construction projects compared to current practice. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 22, 2405–2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavakolan, M.; Mohammadi, S.; Zahraie, B. Construction and resource short-term planning using a BIM-based ontological decision support system. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2021, 48, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reja, V.K.; Varghese, K. Impact of 5G technology on IoT applications in construction project management. In Proceedings of the 36th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Banff, AB, Canada, 21–24 May 2019; pp. 209–217. [Google Scholar]
- Culot, G.; Nassimbeni, G.; Orzes, G.; Sartor, M. Behind the definition of Industry 4.0: Analysis and open questions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 226, 107617-1–107617-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García de Soto, B.; Agustí-Juan, I.; Joss, S.; Hunhevicz, J. Implications of Construction 4.0 to the workforce and organizational structures. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 22, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNEP. Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction—Towards a Zero-Emissions, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2020.
Sustainability Development Goals | Connection to Configuration Decisions |
---|---|
SDG 3—Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages SDG 11—Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable | Providing adequate healthcare facilities based on informed configuration decisions enables good medical care for citizens. |
SDG 6—Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all SDG 7—Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all SDG 9—Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation SDG 12—Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns SDG 14—Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development | As shown in Figure 1, optimisation of hospital configurations may contribute to sustainable multifunctional buildings with reduced resource extraction. |
SDG 8—Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all | Enable predefined production methods based on configuration information that considers feasibility and working conditions. |
SDG 17—Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development | Global interdisciplinary research into digitalisation and end-to-end solutions regarding configuration processes may increase value and knowledge. |
References | Decisions | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Change | Design | Function | Production | Verification | |
[53] | x | x | - | x | x |
[54] | x | - | x | x | - |
[55] | x | x | x | x | - |
[56] | x | x | x | x | x |
[57] | x | x | x | x | x |
[58] | x | x | x | x | x |
[59] | - | x | x | x | - |
[60] | x | x | x | x | x |
[61] | x | x | x | x | - |
[62] | x | x | x | x | - |
[63] | x | x | x | x | - |
Proposed IFC Schemas | Database Attributes | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance Value ID | Decision Maker ID | Function ID | Solution ID | Production Method ID | Change Request ID | Change Consequence ID | Implementation Decision ID | Verification Method ID | |
IfcObjectDefinition | |||||||||
IfcActor | - | x | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
IfcControl | x | - | x | - | - | - | - | x | x |
IfcGroup | - | - | - | x * | - | x * | - | - | - |
IfcObject | - | - | x * | - | - | - | - | - | - |
IfcProduct | - | - | - | x * | - | - | - | - | - |
IfcProcess | - | - | - | - | x | - | - | - | - |
IfcResource | - | - | - | - | x | - | - | - | - |
IfcRelationship | |||||||||
IfcRelAssigns | - | - | - | x | x | - | - | - | - |
IfcRelAssociates | - | - | x | x | x | - | - | - | - |
IfcRelConnects | - | - | - | x ** | - | - | - | - | - |
IfcRelDecomposes | - | - | - | - | - | - | x | - | - |
IfcRelDefines | - | - | - | x | x | - | - | - | - |
IfcPropertyDefinition | |||||||||
IfcPropertySet | - | - | x | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Schönbeck, P.; Löfsjögård, M.; Ansell, A. A Decision Support System for Hospital Configurations in Construction Projects. Buildings 2022, 12, 1569. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101569
Schönbeck P, Löfsjögård M, Ansell A. A Decision Support System for Hospital Configurations in Construction Projects. Buildings. 2022; 12(10):1569. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101569
Chicago/Turabian StyleSchönbeck, Pia, Malin Löfsjögård, and Anders Ansell. 2022. "A Decision Support System for Hospital Configurations in Construction Projects" Buildings 12, no. 10: 1569. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101569
APA StyleSchönbeck, P., Löfsjögård, M., & Ansell, A. (2022). A Decision Support System for Hospital Configurations in Construction Projects. Buildings, 12(10), 1569. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101569