Road Infrastructure Maintenance Management: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Nora Tang and Version 1 by Ana Bošnjak.

Management of nonurban road network maintenance is a complex management process that requires the inclusion of many technical, economic, and other characteristics of the problem, as well as the continuous application of new knowledge and approaches, to maintenance management. To effectively manage the maintenance of the road network in conditions of limited financial resources, maintenance is examined through three interrelated management functions of planning: implementation, monitoring, and maintenance control. This paper includes an analysis of current and relevant papers on this topic. Based on the conducted analysis, the paper gives a theoretical framework and proposes a management model for road network maintenance between urban areas. This model supports the previously mentioned management functions using Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods. The AHP method and the TOPSIS method are engaged in the process of generating a priority road maintenance plan and Earned Value Analysis in maintenance monitoring and control. The AHP method is used to determine the criteria weight vector as a key role in defining the rank of alternatives and in identifying the optimal maintenance rank of nonurban roads using the TOPSIS method. All of the above aim to ensure the safe flow of traffic and the permanent preservation of the construction, traffic, and economic value of roads between urban areas. 

  • maintenance management
  • management functions
  • road network
  • multicriteria decision making

1. Upravljanje i upravljanje održavanjem cestovne infrastrukture

Upr

1. Management and Road Infrastructure Maintenance Management

Mavljintenanje održavanjem cestovne mreže, uce management of the road network, in urbanim i izvangradskim sredinama, složen je and nonurban areas, is a complex proces kako s upravljačkog, tako i s tehničko-ekonomskog stajališta. Dakle, upravljanje općenito, au ovom slučaju upravljanje održavanjem cestovne mreže, kaže se kaos both from the management point of view and from the technical-economic point of view. Thus, management in general, and in this case, road network maintenance management, is said to be a proces ili niz kss or series of continuiranih i povezanih aktivnosti usmjerenih na postizanje postavljenih ciljeva. Opći kous and related activities aimed at achieving set goals. A closer look at the general concept upravljanja održavanjem cestovne mreže izvanof managing the maintenance of the road network outside urbanih područja moguć je pobliže kroz opću podjelu areas is possible through the general division of the management procesa upravljanja na tri glavne funkcije: planiranje, provedbu, kao i praćenje i kss into three main functions: namely, planning, implementation, as well as monitoring and controlu. Opća podjela. The general division of management procesa upravljanja unutar poslovneses within the business organizacije na tri spomenute funkcije je ista kao iu ostalimtion into the three mentioned functions is the same as in other management procesima upravljanja. Međutim,
Nsses. However, its elaboration in this research surbana cestovna mreža predstavlja mrežu cesta izvan urbanih podrbject is in line with the needs of management processes aimed at the maintenance of the nonurban road network. The nonučjrba koja uključuje ceste izmeđun road network presents a network of roads outside urbanih područja, gradova i naselja. Kao takav, namijenjen je povezivanju gospodarski važnih područja i središta mjesnih z areas that includes roads between urban areas, cities, and settlements. As such, it is intended to connect economically important areas and centers of local communities. Roajednica.
Cs areste su nacionalna dobra koja podržavaju gospodarsku aktivnost, budući da je cestovni promet temelj gospodarske djelatnosti, zastarjela cestovnanational assets that support economic activity, as road transport is the basis for economic activity, outdated road infrastruktura zahtijeva pojačano održavanje, promet nastavlja rasti i povećava potrebu za održavanjem itdcture requires increased maintenance, traffic continues to grow and increases the need for maintenance, etc. [ 1 ][1]. OvThese činjenice ukazuju na važnost i potrebu upravljanja održavanjem cesta, kao i na stalni razvoj modela upravljanja održavanjem gradske i izvangradske cestovne mrežefacts indicate the importance and need for road maintenance management, as well as constant development of urban and nonurban road network maintenance management models. Planiranje, kao prva funkcija upravljanja održavanjem cestovne ning, as the first function of road infrastrukture, složen je proces u kojem se više autora uglavnom slaže. Tako sucture maintenance management, is a complex process in which several authors generally agree. Thus, Marović i suret al. [[1] 1]emphasize nthaglašavaju da je planiranje održavanja, kao dio upravljanja gradskom cestovnom t maintenance planning, as part of urban road infrastrukturom, složencture management, is a complex problem i s upravljačkog i s tehno-ekonomskog aspekta, s fokusom nafrom both the managerial and techno-economic aspects, focusing on decision-making procese donošenja odluka vezanih uz fazu planiranja tijekom upravljanja projektima gradske cestovne sses related to the planning phase during urban road infrastrukture. Što se tiče ovihcture project management. Concerning these problemas, Jajac i suret al. [[2] 2 ] nemphaglašavajusize da suthat the prioriteti projekata, u smislu pojedinih godišnjih proračuna za aktivnosti izgradnje, održavanja i sanacije, najteža i najvažnija pitanja u procesu javnog odlučivanja. Drugi razlozi ove složenosti su različiti sudionici s različitim mišljenjima, ization of projects, in terms of particular annual budgets for construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation activities, are the most difficult and important issues in the public decision-making process. The other reasons for this complexity are different participants with different opinions, the multidisciplinarna priroday nature of the problema, velika količina, a large amount of informacija, kao i suprotstavljeni ciljevi i ktion, as well as conflicting goals and criterijia.

2. Donošenje odluka i upravljanje održavanjem cestovne infrastrukture

2. Decision Making and Road Infrastructure Maintenance Management

UprMavljanje je složennagement is a complex proces koji se ne može dogoditi bez ss that cannot happen without a decision-making procesa donošenja odluka. Donošenje odluka smatra se suštinom svih navedenih upravljačkih funkcija, dok je podrška odlučivanju jedan od ključnih čimbenika uspješnog upravljanjas. Decision-making is considered the essence of all the above management functions, while decision support is one of the key factors of successful management.
The decision-making process usually comes after setting goals and objectives that should be achieved, selecting criteria, and preparing to choose the best alternative. Decision-making happens in the management process several times, and in different time intervals, depending on the process that takes place and the resulting need to make appropriate decisions [3]. Therefore, there is a close connection between management and decision-making, as pointed out by numerous authors from the relevant literature within this field. According to Simon [4], decision-making is synonymous with management. Novak [5] defines decision-making as an integral element of managerial activity, while Gorupić [6] considers that managing a business organization means deciding.
Every decision-maker faces more or fewer problems when making decisions. One of the most common problems is the gap between the needs and possibilities. Namely, the needs of every decision-maker are greater than the possibilities or resources available to them. 
The complexity of road infrastructure maintenance management stems, mainly, from a large number of different and conflicting criteria, a large number of stakeholders involved in the decision-making process, a limited maintenance budget, and the multidisciplinary nature of the problems, which is why the decision-making process, as an integral part of management, belongs to complex and poorly structured problems [2]. Therefore, successful nonurban road network maintenance management, as a subject of this research, can be achieved through decision support systems and the application of various methods of multicriteria analysis.

3. Multicriteria Methods and Road Infrastructure Maintenance Management

When managing the maintenance of a nonurban road network, it is usually poorly structured and unstructured problems that are solved by finding the best option, in relation to defined qualitative and quantitative criteria and their weight, using multicriteria analysis methods. The methods of multi-criteria analysis include the following: Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) [8][7], Elimination and (Et) Choice Translating Reality (ELECTRE) [9][8], Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) [10][9], Multi-Attribute Utility/Value Theory (MAUT/MAVT) [11][10], Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) [12][11], Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) [13][12], VIKOR [14][13], etc.
Each method has its advantages and disadvantages depending on the problem. What is common for all of them is that each consists of developing several alternative solutions, defining criteria, evaluating alternative solutions to all criteria, determining the weight of criteria, ranking solutions, conducting sensitivity analysis, and making the final decision [15][14] Each MCDM method is based on the definition of a decision matrix and a criteria weight vector W, which represents the importance that the decision maker gives to each selected criterion. Therefore, after the definition of the decision matrix and criteria weight vector, the most appropriate MCDM method can be used.
In this research, among the mentioned methods, the AHP method was used in determining the importance of criteria, while the TOPSIS method was used in the final ranking of nonurban roads, according to maintenance priorities.
The AHP method, as a multicriteria decision-making method, was developed in 1977 and is used to determine the ranking list of identified alternative solutions that are evaluated according to defined criteria. The method determines the importance factor according to pairwise comparisons of stakeholders involved in the decision-making process. Higher weights define a criterion of greater importance, while lower weights define a less important criterion. The final ranking is obtained by combining the weights of the criteria and the grade of alternative solutions [16][15].
When it comes to the wider field of construction, there are different examples of its application, such as water supply management system [17][16], risk management [18][17], selection of the appropriate material supplier [19][18], selection of the most suitable concrete mix [20][19], assessment of dam rehabilitation [21][20], solving problems in the field of energy efficiency [22][21], evaluation of solutions in the design of building structures [23][22], determining the priorities of the restoration of architectural heritage [24][23], determining the index of the condition of the bridge [25][24], and choosing the best way to manage demand [26][25].
The TOPSIS method, developed in 198,1 is based on selecting the optimal alternative according to the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution and the furthest distance from the negative ideal solution, in the geometric sense [10][9]. Numerous authors have applied the TOPSIS method in poorly structured engineering problems, such as selecting the most suitable contractor [27,28][26][27], selecting the appropriate wastewater treatment technology [29][28], assessing the level of risk safety of bridge construction [30][29], evaluating bids for highway construction [31][30], the process of hiring employees according to pre-defined criteria [32][31], etc.
When it comes to the AHP method application in solving the problem of transport infrastructure, Sirin et al. [33][32] identify all factors that affect the performance of roads as a fundamental element of road infrastructure during road design, construction, and the maintenance phase.
Khademi and Sheikholeslami [34][33] combine the AHP method with the Delfi technique, as a hybrid Delfi-AHP model, in prioritizing the maintenance, improvement, and upgrading of lower-class roads. In this research, the Delphi technique was applied in defining the criteria by 76 traffic experts, while the AHP method determines their relative weights, based on which the observed roads are finally ranked according to the priorities of maintenance and reconstruction.
The AHP method can be combined with other methods of multicriteria analysis. Therefore, Sayadinia and Beheshtinia [35][34] provide a new hybrid approach to multicriteria decision-making by combining AHP, ELECTRE II, ELECTRE III, and ELECTRE IV methods and Copeland techniques in prioritizing road maintenance. Using the AHP method, the weights of individual criteria were also determined, but ELECTRE II, ELECTRE III, and ELECTRE IV methods of multicriteria decision-making were used to rank alternatives. The results obtained with the help of these methods were finally combined with the Copeland technique, thus giving the final list of priorities for the maintenance of the observed roads.
Bhandari and Nalmpantis [36][35] use the AHP method to rank a total of 13 criteria, divided into three sustainability groups, according to their relative importance. TOPSIS, MOORA, and PROMETHEE methods are used to rank rural roads according to maintenance priorities. Each method gives a similar priority list of observed rural roads.
Jajac et al. [37][36] propose the concept of decision support on the problem of urban road infrastructure management, based on a combination of AHP, SAW, and PROMETHEE methods and 0–1 programming. The assessment of the importance of the criteria, which includes the opinion of all stakeholders, was performed using the AHP and SAW methods, while the ranking of priorities for the construction of garages, in the urban part of the city of Split, was performed using the PROMETHEE method.
Kilić Pamuković et al. [16][15] use a combination of the AHP method and PROMETHEE method to rank and determine priorities in the maintenance of asphalt pavement, on the main roads of the city of Split, as part of the road infrastructure. In order to improve the process of planning, the maintenance of asphalt pavements through the applied multicriteria methods—the social, technical, and economic aspects of this problem—have been taken into account.
A similar approach to multicriteria decision-making, based on a combination of AHP and PROMETHEE methods, has been used in other technical and more precise construction issues, such as planning projects for the rehabilitation of historic bridges [38][37], site selection in the construction project planning phase [39][38], selection of the best investment project [40][39], planning the rehabilitation of schools by removing barriers [41][40], and maintenance of city parking facilities [42][41]. Regardless of the subject of the research, all authors agree on how complex decision-making processes, such as ranking, cannot take place without the establishment of a decision support system and the application of appropriate multi criteria decision-making methods. Furthermore, Nodrat and Kang [43][42] developed a tool to prioritize road maintenance and rehabilitation activities. They have taken into account the road condition index, road width, traffic intensity, and maintenance costs. To increase road safety, Francello et al. [44][43] rank urban road intersections, based on eight safety criteria, by comparing the results obtained using the TOPSIS and VIKOR methods, as well as the Concordance Analysis.
In contrast to decision-making concepts based exclusively on a combination of multi-criteria methods, Jajac et al. [2] presented a multi criteria decision-making approach. It aimed at improving decision-making at the level of urban road infrastructure planning, based on a combination of multi-criteria SAW and AHP methods, with neural networks. Marović et al. [1], to also solve the problem of decision-making in the field of urban infrastructure, developed a model of artificial neural networks to predict road degradation as an auxiliary tool in planning the maintenance of road infrastructure.
NadaljFurthermore, Rogulj i suret al. [[40] 41 ] razdevielo je novi ekspertni sustav za procjenu stanja povijesnih cestovnih mostova kao dijela cestovneped a new expert system for assessing the condition of historic road bridges as part of road infrastrukcture, koristeći neizrazu logiku i alfa rezove u kusing fuzzy logic and alpha cuts in combinaciji stion with the AHP metodom koja se koristi za usporedbu i rangiranjehod used to compare and rank alternativnih rješenjae solutions.

References

  1. Marović, I.; Androjić, I.; Jajac, N.; Hanak, T. Urban Road Infrastructure Maintenance Planning with Application of Neural Networks. Complexity 2018, 2018, 5160417.
  2. Jajac, N.; Marović, I.; Hanak, T. Decision support for management of urban transport projects. Građevinar 2015, 67, 131–141.
  3. Jovanović, P. Project Management, 5th ed.; Grafoslog: Beograd, Serbia, 2002.
  4. Simon, H.A. The New Sciences of Management Decisions; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1960.
  5. Novak, M. Problems of decision making in organizations of associated labor. In Problems of Economic Development and the Economic System of Yugoslavia; Faculty of Economics: Zagreb, Croatia, 1977.
  6. Gorupić, D. Business Policy of the Company; Ekonomski Institut: Zagreb, Croatia, 1963.
  7. Kalibatas, D.; Kovaitis, V. Selecting the most effective alternative of waterproof membranes for multifunctional inverted flat roofs. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2017, 23, 650–660.
  8. Govindan, K.; Jepsen, M.B. ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 250, 1–29.
  9. Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Methods and Applications. A State-of-the-Art-Survey; Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1981; Volume 186.
  10. Keeney, R.L.; Raiffa, H. Decision with Multiple Objectives; Willey: New York, NY, USA, 1976.
  11. Bezhadian, M.; Kazemzadeh, R.B.; Albadvi, A.; Aghdasi, M. PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and application. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 200, 198–215.
  12. Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98.
  13. Opricovic, S. Multicriteria Optimization in Civil Engineering; Faculty of Civil Engineering: Belgrade, Serbia, 1998.
  14. Hajkowicz, S. A comparision of multiple criteria analysis and unaided approaches to environmental decision making. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10, 177–184.
  15. Kilić Pamuković, J.; Rogulj, K.; Dumanić, D.; Jajac, N. A Sustainable Approach for the Maintenance of Asphalt Pavement Construction. Sustainability 2021, 13, 109.
  16. Zyound, S.H.; Fuchs-Hanusch, D. Comparision of Several Decision-Making Techniques: A Case of Water Losses Management in Developing Countries. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2019, 18, 1551–1578.
  17. Razi, P.Z.; Ali, M.I.; Ramli, N.I. Overview of analytical hierarchy process decision making method for construction risk management. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series-Earth and Environmental Science, Kuantan, Malaysia, 17–18 August 2018.
  18. Eshtehardian, F.; Ghodousi, P.; Bejanpour, A. Using ANP and AHP for the supplier selection in the construction and civil engineering companies; Case study of Iranian company. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2013, 17, 262–270.
  19. Khan, U.; Verma, R.; Kumar Singh, B.; Yadav, V. Application of Multi Criteria Decision Making tools in Selection of Concrete Mix. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2021, 80, 304–309.
  20. Choi, J.H.; Yoon, T.H.; Kim, J.S.; Moon, Y.I. Rehabilitation Assessment Using the Delphi-AHP Method for Adapting to Climate Change. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2018, 144, 06017007.
  21. Stanojević, A.D.; Milošević, M.R.; Milošević, D.M.; Turnšek, B.; Jevremović, L.J. Developing multi-criteria model for the protection of built heritage from the aspect of energy retrofitting. Energy Build. 2021, 250, 111285.
  22. Szafranko, E. Possibilities of application of multi-criteria analysis methods to evaluate material and technological solutions in the design of building structures. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Modern Trends in Manufacturing Technologies and Equipment (ICMTMTE), Sevastopol, Russia, 7–11 September 2020.
  23. Vodopivec, B.; Selih, J.; Zarnic, R. Interdisciplinary determination of architectural heritage restoration priorities on the case of castles, Annales—Anali za Istrske in Mediteranske Studije. Ser. Hist. Sociol. 2015, 25, 1–18.
  24. Darban, S.; Tehrani, H.G.; Karballaeezadeh, N.; Mosavi, A. Appliction of Analytical Hierarchy Process for Structural Health Monitoring and Prioritizing Concrete Bridges in Iran. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8060.
  25. Mokhatar, M.R.; Abdullah, M.P.; Massan, M.Y.; Hussin, F. Combination of AHP-PROMETHEE and TOPSIS for Selecting the Best Demand Side Management (DSM) Options. In Proceedings of the IEEE Student Conference on Research and Development, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 13–14 December 2015.
  26. Alptekin, O.; Alptekin, N. Analysis of Criteria Influencing Contractior Selection using TOPSIS Method. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245, 6.
  27. Erdogan, S.A.; Šaparauskas, J.; Turskis, Z. A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model to choose the best option for sustainable construction management. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2239.
  28. Yahya, M.N.; Gokcekus, H.; Ozsahin, D.U.; Uzun, B. Evaluation of wastewater treatment technologies using TOPSIS. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Water Problems in the Mediterranean Countries (WPMC), Lefkosa, Cyprus, 6–10 May 2019.
  29. Wu, H.; Liu, S.; Wang, J.W.; Yang, T.Y. Construction Safety Risk Assessment of Bridges in the Marine Environment Based on CRITIC and TOPSIS Models. J. Coast. Res. 2020, 108, 206–210.
  30. Meng, Q.Y.; Thang, C.L.; Song, T.; Li, N.L. The Application of the Improved TOPSIS Method in Bid Evaluation of Highway Construction. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Civil Engineering, Architecture and Building Materials (CEABM), Yantai, China, 25 May 2012.
  31. Widiantha, M.M.d.; Rizaldi, T.; Setyohadi, D.P.S.; Riskiawan, H.Y. Comparision of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods (AHP, TOPSIS, SAW & PROMETHEE) for Employee Placement. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Science and Technology (IJCST), Bali, Indonesia, 27–28 September 2017.
  32. Sirin, O.; Gunduz, M.; Shamiyeh, M.E. Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for sustainable pavement performance management in Qatar. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 28, 3106–3122.
  33. Khademi, N.; Sheikholeslami, A. Multicriteria Group Decision-Making Technique for a Low-Class Road Maintenance Program. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2010, 16, 188–198.
  34. Sayadinia, S.; Beheshtinia, M.A. Proposing a new hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for road maintenance prioritization. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2021, 38, 1661–1679.
  35. Bhandari, B.; Nalmpantis, D. Application of Various Multiple Criteria Analysis Methods for the Evaluation of Rural Road Projects. Open Transp. J. 2018, 12, 57–76.
  36. Jajac, N.; Knezić, S.; Babić, Z. Integration of Multicriteria Analysis into Decision Support Concept for Urban Road Infrastructure Management. Croat. Oper. Res. Rev. (CRORR) 2010, 1, 74–92.
  37. Jajac, N.; Rogulj, K.; Radnić, J. Selection of the Method fo Rehabilitation of Historic Bridges—A Decision Support Concept for the Planning of Rehabilitation Projects. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2017, 11, 261–277.
  38. Jajac, N.; Bilić, I.; Ajduk, A. Decision Support Concept to Management of Construction Projects—Problem of Construction Site Selection. Croat. Oper. Res. Rev. CRORR 2013, 1, 74–92.
  39. Jajac, N.; Bilić, I.; Mladineo, M. Application of Multicriteria Methods to Planning of Investment Project in Field of Civil Engineering. Croat. Oper. Res. Rev. CRORR 2012, 3, 113–124.
  40. Rogulj, K.; Kilić–Pamuković, J.; Jajac, N. Knowledge-Based Fuzzy Expert System to the Condition Assessment of Historic Road Bridges. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1021.
  41. Jajac, N.; Marović, I.; Baučić, M. Decision Support Concept for Managing the Maintenance of City Parking Facilities. E-GFOS 2014, 9, 60–69.
  42. Nodrat, F.; Kang, D. Developing a Simplified Maintenance & Rehabilitation Activity Prioritization Tool for Afghanistan Roads. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Informatics and Biomedical Sciences (ICIIBMS), Okinawa, Japan, 24–26 November 2017; pp. 154–158.
  43. Francello, G.; Carta, M.; Fadda, P. Road intersections ranking for road safety improvement: Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Transp. Policy 2018, 80, 188–196.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback