Information systems to support decision-making in construction owner organizations : a data warehousing approach

Construction organizations typically deal with large volumes of project data containing valuable information. It is found that these organizations do not use these data effectively for planning and decision-making. There are two reasons. First, the information systems in construction organizations are designed to support day-to-day construction operations. The data stored in these systems are often non-validated, nonintegrated and are available in a format that makes it difficult for decision makers to use in order to make timely decisions. Second, the organizational structure and the IT infrastructure are often not compatible with the information systems thereby resulting in higher operational costs and lower productivity. These two issues have been investigated in this research with the objective of developing systems that are structured for effective decision-making. A framework was developed to guide storage and retrieval of validated and integrated data for timely decision-making and to enable construction organizations to redesign their organizational structure and IT infrastructure matched with information system capabilities. The research was focused on construction owner organizations that were continuously involved in multiple construction projects. Action research and Data warehousing techniques were used to develop the framework. One hundred and sixty-three construction owner organizations were surveyed in order to assess their data needs, data management practices and extent of use of information systems in planning and decision-making. For in-depth analysis, Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) was selected which is in-charge of all transportation-related construction projects in the Miami-Dade county. A functional model and a prototype system were developed to test the framework. The results revealed significant improvements in data management and decision-support operations that were examined through various qualitative (ease in data access, data quality, response time, productivity improvement, etc.) and quantitative (time savings and operational cost savings) measures. The research results were first validated by MDT and then by a representative group of twenty construction owner organizations involved in various types of construction projects.

Examining Moderators of the Hindsight Bias in the Context of Civil Legal Decision-Making: Counterfactuals, Causal Proximity, and Self-Referencing

The current research sought to clarify the diverging relationships between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias observed in the literature thus far. In a non-legal context, Roese and Olson (1996) found a positive relationship between counterfactuals and hindsight bias, such that counterfactual mutations that undid the outcome also increased participants’ ratings of the outcome’s a priori likelihood. Further, they determined that this relationship is mediated by causal attributions about the counterfactually mutated antecedent event. Conversely, in the context of a civil lawsuit, Robbennolt and Sobus (1997) found that the relationship between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias is negative. The current research sought to resolve the conflicting findings in the literature within a legal context. In Experiment One, the manipulation of the normality of the defendant’s target behavior, designed to manipulate participants’ counterfactual thoughts about said behavior, did moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge on mock jurors’ judgments of the foreseeability of that outcome as well as their negligence verdicts. Although I predicted that counterfactual thinking would increase, or exacerbate, the hindsight bias, as found by Roese and Olson (1996), my results provided some support for Robbenolt and Sobus’s (1997) finding that counterfactual thinking decreases the hindsight bias. Behavior normality did not moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge in Experiment Two, nor did causal proximity in Experiment Three. Additionally, my hypothesis that self-referencing may be an effective hindsight debiasing technique received little support across the three experiments. Although both the self-referencing instructions and self-report measure consistently decreased mock jurors’ likelihood of finding the defendant negligent, and self-referencing instructions decreased their foreseeability ratings in studies two and three, the self-referencing manipulation did not interact with outcome knowledge to moderate a hindsight bias effect on either foreseeability or negligence judgments. The consistent pattern of results across the three experiments, however, suggests that self-referencing may be an effective technique in reducing the likelihood of negligence verdicts.