Risk assessment for build-operate-transfer projects: A dynamic multi-objective programming approach

Computers and Operations Research

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1633-1654

  Kang, Chao Chung ^a   Feng, Cheng Min ^b   Khan, Haider A ^c  

^a PROVIDENCE UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

Author keywords

BOT; Dynamic programming; Interactive utility; Multi objective programming; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; ITERATIVE METHODS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; OPERATIONS RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT;

BUILT-OPERATE-TRANSFER (BOT); INTERACTIVE UTILITIES; MARKET RISKS; MULTI-OBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING;

DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING;

EID: 9544233567     PISSN: 03050548     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cor.2003.11.026     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Walker C, Smith AJ. Privatized infrastructure: the build-operate- transfer. Thomas Telford Publications; 1996.
2. Tiong LK. Risks and guarantees in BOT tender. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 1995;121(2):183-7.
3. Tiong LK. Final negotiation in competitive BOT tender. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 1997;123(1):6-10.
4. Feng CM, Kang CC. Risk identification and measurement of BOT projects. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 1999;4(4):331-50.
5. Feng CM, Kang CC. The risk assessment of the negotiation group for BOT projects. Transportation Planning Journal Quarterly 2000;29(4):709-38. [in Chinese].
6. Zayed TM, Chang LM. Prototype model for build-operate-transfer risk assessment. Journal of Management Engineering 2002;18(1):7-16.
7. David AK. Risk modeling in energy contracts between host utilities and BOT plant investors. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 1996;11(2):359-66.
8. Bell DE. Risk, return, and utility. Management Science 1995;41(1):23-30.
9. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge: University Press; 1993.
10. Bose U, Davey AM, Olson DL. Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision-making: past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS. International Journal of Management Science 1997;25(6):691-706.
11. William ICJ, Crandall KC. Construction risk: multi-attribute approach. Journal of Construction Division 1982; 108(2): 187-200.
12. Feng CM, Kang CC, Tzeng GH. Applications of group negotiation to risk assessment of BOT projects. OMEGA 2002 [revised].
13. Gang IN, Khan HA. Modeling foreign aid and development expenditures. Paper Presented at the AEA Conference, 1989, Atlanta.
14. Debreu G. Theory of value. Cowles foundation monograph. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1959.
15. Marschak J, Radner R. The economic theory of teams. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1972.
16. McGuire CB, Roy R. Decision and organization: a volume in honor of Jacob Marschak, 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1986.
17. Kim KH, Roush FW. Team theory. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood Limited Publishers; 1987.
18. Haimes YY. Risk modeling, assessment, and management. New York: Wiley; 1998.
19. Orlovski SA. Fuzzy goals and sets of choices in two-person games. In: Kacprzyk A, Fedrizzi M, editors. Multiperson decision-making models using fuzzy sets and possibility theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1990. p. 288-97.
20. Carbone E. Discriminating between preference functionals: a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1997;15(1):29-54.
21. Belichrosdt H, Quiggin J. Characterizing QALYs under a general-rank dependent utility model. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1997;15(2):151-65.
22. Quiggin J. Comparative static for rank-dependent expected utility theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1991;4(4):339-50.
23. Quiggin J. Production under uncertainty and choice under in the emergence of generalized expected utility theory. Theory and Decision 2001 ;51:125-44.
24. Buhalmann H. Mathematical methods in risk theory. New York: Springer; 1996.
25. Fishburn PC. Representation of preferences. In: Eatwell J, Milgate M, Newman P, editors. The new Palgrave utility and probability. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.; 1990.
26. Luce RD, Fishburn P. A note on deriving rank-dependent utility using additive joint receipts. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1995;11(1):5-16.
27. Kang, Chao Chung. The risk measurement model of negotiation group-an example of private sector participating in an infrastructure project. PhD dissertation for the Institute of Traffic and Transportation, National Chiao Tung University, 2000.