Severity Assessment of Problems in Turkish Building Audit System: A Fuzzy AHP Approach

Öz

The Building Audit system (BAS) has often been criticized due to its various drawbacks by researchers, construction practitioners, and professional chambers. Existing studies, however, do not comprehensively investigate the problems seen in Turkish BAS. Since the decision-makers are provided with little knowledge about the drawbacks of the system, they can barely develop new strategies to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. To bridge this gap, this study aimed to identify the drawbacks seen in the implementation of the Turkish Building Audit System (BAS). In addition, the severity of each drawback was also determined to further provide comprehensive guidance to policymakers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Initially, an extensive literature review was conducted to identify problems of Turkish BAS. Identified problems were then validated through Focus Group Discussion (FGD) sessions with the participation of 12 experts who have diverse experience in the related field. Later, a questionnaire survey was designed to measure the severity of each problem/drawback and the data was collected from 15 construction practitioners. The data were then analyzed using the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method to measure the severities of problems seen in Turkish BAS. Then, the problems were prioritized based on their severities. At the final step, sensitivity analysis was conducted to measure the robustness and reliability of the results derived from the FAHP method. Results revealed that problems such as “Lack of practical knowledge of technical staff”, “Absence of site supervisor at the site” “Political pressure” and “Neglecting technical specifications and procedures” were determined as the most severe problems that need urgent attention of decision-makers. It is highly believed that this study will guide decision-makers for the improvement of existing legislation. Additionally, it is also believed that practitioners will take necessary precautions beforehand by using the outputs of this study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Building audit system
• quality control
• quality assurance
• construction

Kaynakça

1. Z. Y. İlerisoy, F. Gökşen, A. Soyluk, and Y. Takva, “Deprem Kaynaklı İkincil Afetler ve Türkiye Örneklemi,” Online J. Art Des., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 138–148, 2022.
2. O. Ergünay, “Ülkemizde Yapı Denetiminin Gelişimi ve 595 Sayılı Kanun Hükmünde Kararname ile Getirilen Yeni Yapı Denetim Sistemi,” Türkiye Mühendislik Haberleri Sayısı 410-2000/6, pp. 15–17, 2000.
3. S. Cansız, “Türkiye’de Kullanılan Deprem Yönetmeliklerinin Özellikleri ve Eşdeğer Yatay Deprem Yükü Hesabının Değişimi,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Dev., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 58–71, 2022.
4. “17 Ağustos 1999 Gölcük Depremi,” AFAD, 1999. .
5. B. GÜNER, “Türkiye’deki Deprem Hasarlarına Dönemsel bir Yaklaşım; 3 Dönem 3 Deprem,” East. Geogr. Rev., vol. 25, no. 43, pp. 139–152, 2020.
6. F. Sakallı, “Yapı Denetim Sisteminde Yaşanan Sorunlar, 4708 Sayılı Yapı Denetim Hakkında Kanun’daki Eksiklikler ve Çözüm Önerileri,” Istanbul Technical University, 2008.
7. M. Pala and M. Ş. Demir, “Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesinde Yapı Denetimi Uygulamasında Karşılaşılan Sorunlar ve Bu Sorunlara İlişkin Çözüm Önerileri,” Adıyaman Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilim. Derg., vol. 6, pp. 20–33, 2017.
8. A. Doğan, “Ankara’da Yapi Denetim Sorunlarinin Belirlenmesiyle Ilgili Bir Saha Çalişmasi,” Deaty Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2013.

9. G. Tantekin Çelik and C. Ünal, “Yapı Denetim Firmalarının Sorunlarının Belirlenmesi ve Adana Örneği,” 2017.
10. R. Kural and O. Ünal, “İnşaat Sektöründe Yapı Denetimi ve Afyonkarahisar İlindeki Uygulamaların Araştırılması,” Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilim. Derg. Afyon, vol. 15, pp. 1–10, 2015, doi: 10.5578/fmbd.10675.
11. E. Erdiş and İ. H. Gerek, “Yapı Denetim Sisteminde KarşılaĢılan Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri,” in 6. İnşaat Yönetimi Kongresi, 2011, pp. 298–306.
12. R. Akbıyıklı, G. Opçin, M. Akdemir, and E. Gündüz, “Türkiye’de Yapı Denetim Kavramı, Amacı, Yasal Dayanağı ve Uygulamaları Üzerine Bir İnceleme,” in Uluslararası Katılımlı 7. İnşaat Yönetimi Kongresi, 2017, pp. 217–229.
13. M. Yılmaz and E. Köymen, “Türkiye’de Yapı Denetim Sistemi ve Sorunları Üzerine Teorik Bir İnceleme,” J. Soc. Humanit. Sci. Res., vol. 7, no. 50, pp. 330–339, 2020.
14. S. Bayram, S. Aydınlı, A. Budak, and E. Oral, “Ethical problems in the production and inspection of construction in Turkey,” Pamukkale Univ. J. Eng. Sci., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 461–467, 2018, doi: 10.5505/pajes.2017.65481.
15. Society of Construction Law, “The society of construction law delay and disruption protocol,” Leicestershire (United Kingdom), 2017.
16. PMI, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 6th ed. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute, 2017.
17. Ministry of Environment Urbanization and Climate Change, YAPI DENETİM SİSTEMİNDE DEĞİŞİKLİK. Türkey, 2018.
18. IMO, “AVRUPA’DA İNŞAAT MÜHENDİSLİĞİ SEKTÖRÜ,” 1995.
19. İMO, “Yapı Denetim Çalıştayı,” ANtalya, 2016.
20. C. ŞERİFOĞLU, “Mevcut Yapı Denetim Sisteminin Eleştirisi ve Sertifika Esaslı - Başarım Tabanlı Bir Bütünleşik Değerlendirme ve Denetim Modeli Önerisi,” İstanbul Technical University, 2019.
21. S. S. Tezcan et al., “Yapida denetim ve sertifikali mühendis,” İzmir, İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası İzmir Şubesi Haber Bülteni, no. 62, pp. 20–25, 1995.
22. National Society of Professional Engineers, “What is a PE?,” 2022. .
23. National Society of Professional Engineers, “NCEES FE exam information,” 2022. .
24. Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning, Yapi Denetimi Uygulama Yönetmeliğinde Değişiklik Yapilmasina Dair Yönetmelik. Turkey, 2018.
25. M. Velasquez and P. T. Hester, “An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods Systemic Decision Making View project Maritime Cybersecurity View project An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods,” Int. J. Oper. Res., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 56–66, 2013.
26. T. L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
27. C. Kahraman, U. Cebeci, and Z. Ulukan, “Multi‐criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP,” Logist. Inf. Manag., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 382–394, Dec. 2003, doi: 10.1108/09576050310503367.
28. R. V. Rao, Decision Making in the Manufacturing Environment, 1st ed. London: Springer-Verlag London, 2007.
29. M. B. Javanbarg, C. Scawthorn, J. Kiyono, and B. Shahbodaghkhan, “Fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria decision making systems using particle swarm optimization,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 960–966, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.095.
30. Ö. Ekmekcioğlu, K. Koc, and M. Özger, “District based flood risk assessment in Istanbul using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process,” Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess., vol. 8, pp. 617–637, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s00477-020-01924-8.
31. R. Rostamzadeh, K. Govindan, A. Esmaeili, and M. Sabaghi, “Application of fuzzy VIKOR for evaluation of green supply chain management practices,” Ecol. Indic., vol. 49, pp. 188–203, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.045.
32. L. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets,” Inf. Control, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 338–353, 1965.
33. M. B. Ayhan, “A Fuzzy Ahp Approach For Supplier Selection Problem: A Case Study In A Gearmotor Company,” Int. J. Manag. Value Supply Chain., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 11–23, 2013, doi: 10.5121/ijmvsc.2013.4302.
34. D.-Y. Y. Chang, “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 649–655, Dec. 1996, doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2.
35. P. Graham, N. Nikolova, and S. Sankaran, “Tension between leadership archetypes: systematic review to inform construction research and practice,” J. Manag. Eng., vol. 36, no. 1, p. 03119002, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000722.
36. O. Okudan, C. Budayan, and I. Dikmen, “Development of a conceptual life cycle performance measurement system for build–operate–transfer (BOT) projects,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1635–1656, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-01-2020-0071.
37. W. Yi and A. P. C. Chan, “Critical review of labor productivity research in construction journals,” J. Manag. Eng., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 214–225, Mar. 2014, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000194.
38. A. Parker and J. Tritter, “Focus group method and methodology: current practice and recent debate,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 23–37, Apr. 2006, doi: 10.1080/01406720500537304.
39. I. Y. S. Chan, M. Leung, and S. S. W. Yu, “Managing the Stress of Hong Kong Expatriate Construction Professionals in Mainland China: Focus Group Study Exploring Individual Coping Strategies and Organizational Support,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 138, no. 10, pp. 1150–1160, 2012, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000533.
40. M. M. Hennink, Focus Group Dicussions: Understanding Qualitative Research. New York: Oxford, 2013.
41. A. R. J. Dainty, M. I. Cheng, and D. R. Moore, “Redefining performance measures for construction project managers: An empirical evaluation,” Constr. Manag. Econ., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 209–218, Feb. 2003, doi: 10.1080/0144619032000049737.
42. A. Hasan, A. Elmualim, R. Rameezdeen, B. Baroudi, and A. Marshall, “An exploratory study on the impact of mobile ICT on productivity in construction projects,” Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 320–332, 2018, doi: 10.1108/BEPAM-10-2017-0080.
43. T. O. Nyumba, K. Wilson, C. J. Derrick, and N. Mukherjee, “The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation,” Methods Ecol. Evol., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 20–32, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12860.
44. C. Budayan, “Evaluation of delay causes for BOT projects based on perceptions of different stakeholders in Turkey,” J. Manag. Eng., vol. 35, no. 1, p. 04018057, 2019, doi: 10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000668.
45. S. Opricovic, “Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 12983–12990, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.097.
46. P. Liu and X. Wu, “A competency evaluation method of human resources managers based on multi-granularity linguistic variables and VIKOR method,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 696–710, 2012, doi: 10.3846/20294913.2012.753169.
47. S. Opricovic and G. H. Tzeng, “Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 156, no. 2, pp. 445–455, 2004, doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.
48. J. R. Ribas, M. E. Arce, F. A. Sohler, and A. Suárez-García, “Multi-criteria risk assessment: Case study of a large hydroelectric project,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 227, pp. 237–247, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.043.
49. X. ling Yang, J. hua Ding, and H. Hou, “Application of a triangular fuzzy AHP approach for flood risk evaluation and response measures analysis,” Nat. Hazards, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 657–674, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0642-x.
50. A. Darko, A. P. C. Chan, E. E. Ameyaw, E. K. Owusu, E. Pärn, and D. J. Edwards, “Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction,” Int. J. Constr. Manag., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 436–452, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2018.1452098.
51. M. B. Javanbarg, C. Scawthorn, J. Kiyono, and B. Shahbodaghkhan, “Fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria decision making systems using particle swarm optimization,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 960–966, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.095.
52. S. H. Zyoud, L. G. Kaufmann, H. Shaheen, S. Samhan, and D. Fuchs-Hanusch, “A framework for water loss management in developing countries under fuzzy environment: Integration of Fuzzy AHP with Fuzzy TOPSIS,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 61, pp. 86–105, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.05.016.
53. L. M. P. Beltrão and M. T. M. Carvalho, “Prioritizing Construction Risks Using Fuzzy AHP in Brazilian Public Enterprises,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 145, no. 2, p. 05018018, 2019, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001606.
54. L. Gigović, D. Pamučar, Z. Bajić, and S. Drobnjak, “Application of GIS-interval rough AHP methodology for flood hazard mapping in Urban areas,” Water (Switzerland), vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1–26, 2017, doi: 10.3390/w9060360.
55. N. Dahri and H. Abida, “Monte Carlo simulation-aided analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for flood susceptibility mapping in Gabes Basin (southeastern Tunisia),” Environ. Earth Sci., vol. 76, no. 7, pp. 1–14, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s12665-017-6619-4.
56. G. Papaioannou, L. Vasiliades, and A. Loukas, “Multi-Criteria Analysis Framework for Potential Flood Prone Areas Mapping,” Water Resour. Manag., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 399–418, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11269-014-0817-6.
57. K. Koc and O. Okudan, “Assessment of Life Cycle Risks of Deconstruction in Urban Regeneration Projects,” 2021, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002161.
58. T. L. Saaty, “Decision making — the Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP),” J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–35, 2004, doi: 10.1007/s11518-006-0151-5.
59. D.-Y. Chang, “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 649–655, Dec. 1996, doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2.
60. K. Kamvysi, K. Gotzamani, A. Andronikidis, and A. C. Georgiou, “Capturing and prioritizing students’ requirements for course design by embedding Fuzzy-AHP and linear programming in QFD,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 237, no. 3, pp. 1083–1094, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.02.042.
61. A. Ishizaka and A. Labib, “Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 14336–14345, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143.
62. M. L. Tseng and Y. H. Lin, “Selection of competitive advantages in TQM implementation using fuzzy AHP and sensitivity analysis,” Asia Pacific Manag. Rev., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 583–599, 2008, doi: 10.6126/APMR.2008.13.3.03.
63. Ö. Ekmekcioğlu, K. Koc, and M. Özger, “District based flood risk assessment in Istanbul using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process,” Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess., 2020, doi: 10.1007/s00477-020-01924-8.
64. H. Aladağ and Z. Işık, “Design and construction risks in BOT type mega transportation projects,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 2223–2242, 2019, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-08-2018-0351.
65. H. Aladaǧ and Z. Işik, “The Effect of Stakeholder-Associated Risks in Mega-Engineering Projects: A Case Study of a PPP Airport Project,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 174–186, 2020, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2018.2866269.