Comparing cost uplift in infrastructure delivery methods : a case based approach

The alliance project delivery method is used for approximately one third of all Australian government infrastructure projects representing $8-$10 billion per annum. Despite its widespread use, little is known about the differences between estimated project cost and actual cost over the project lifecycle. This paper presents the findings of research into 14 Australian government alliance case studies investigating the observed cost uplift over each project’s lifecycle. I find that significant cost uplift is likely and that this uplift is greater than that afflicting traditional delivery methods. Furthermore, most of the cost uplift occurs at a different place in the project lifecycle, namely between Business Case and Contractual Commitment.

Rough sets based reasoning and pattern mining for a two-stage information filtering system

This paper presents a novel two-stage information filtering model which combines the merits of term-based and pattern- based approaches to effectively filter sheer volume of information. In particular, the first filtering stage is supported by a novel rough analysis model which efficiently removes a large number of irrelevant documents, thereby addressing the overload problem. The second filtering stage is empowered by a semantically rich pattern taxonomy mining model which effectively fetches incoming documents according to the specific information needs of a user, thereby addressing the mismatch problem. The experiments have been conducted to compare the proposed two-stage filtering (T-SM) model with other possible "term-based + pattern-based" or "term-based + term-based" IF models. The results based on the RCV1 corpus show that the T-SM model significantly outperforms other types of "two-stage" IF models.

Comparing cost uplift in infrastructure delivery methods : a case based approach

In 2009 the Australian Federal and State governments are expected to have spent some AU$30 billion procuring infrastructure projects. For governments with finite resources but many competing projects, formal capital rationing is achieved through use of Business Cases. These Business cases articulate the merits of investing in particular projects along with the estimated costs and risks of each project. Despite the sheer size and impact of infrastructure projects, there is very little research in Australia, or internationally, on the performance of these projects against Business Case assumptions when the decision to invest is made. If such assumptions (particularly cost assumptions) are not met, then there is serious potential for the misallocation of Australia’s finite financial resources. This research addresses this important gap in the literature by using combined quantitative and qualitative research methods, to examine the actual performance of 14 major Australian government infrastructure projects. The research findings are controversial as they challenge widely held perceptions of the effectiveness of certain infrastructure delivery practices. Despite this controversy, the research has had a significant impact on the field and has been described as ‘outstanding’ and ‘definitive’ (Alliancing Association of Australasia), "one of the first of its kind" (Infrastructure Partnerships of Australia) and "making a critical difference to infrastructure procurement" (Victorian Department of Treasury). The implications for practice of the research have been profound and included the withdrawal by Government of various infrastructure procurement guidelines, the formulation of new infrastructure policies by several state governments and the preparation of new infrastructure guidelines that substantially reflect the research findings. Building on the practical research, a more rigorous academic investigation focussed on the comparative cost uplift of various project delivery strategies was submitted to Australia’s premier academic management conference, the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Annual Conference. This paper has been accepted for the 2010 ANZAM National Conference following a process of double blind peer review with reviewers rating the paper’s overall contribution as "Excellent" and "Good".

Incentive mechanisms in infrastructure projects : A case-based comparison between Australia and the Netherlands

Despite a general belief that incentive mechanisms can improve value for money during procurement and performance during project execution, empirical research on the actual effects is nascent. This research focuses on the design and implementation of incentive mechanisms in four different infrastructure projects: two road reconstructions in the Netherlands and two building constructions in Australia. Based on an analytical framework of key motivation drivers, a cross cases analysis is conducted in view of performance on the contract assumptions, selection phase, execution phase and project contract performance. It was identified that despite significant differences in the project characteristics, results indicate that they experience similar contextual drivers on the incentive effectiveness. High value was placed on risk allocation and relationship building in the selection and construction phase. The differences can be explained from both contextual and project related characteristics. Although there are limitations with this research in drawing generalizations across two sets of case projects, the results provide a strong base to explore the nature of incentive systems across different geographical and contextual boundaries in future research.

Developing Co-operating Legal Knowledge Based Systems

In attempting to build intelligent litigation support tools, we have moved beyond first generation, production rule legal expert systems. Our work supplements rule-based reasoning with case based reasoning and intelligent information retrieval. This research, specifies an approach to the case based retrieval problem which relies heavily on an extended object-oriented / rule-based system architecture that is supplemented with causal background information. Machine learning techniques and a distributed agent architecture are used to help simulate the reasoning process of lawyers. In this paper, we outline our implementation of the hybrid IKBALS II Rule Based Reasoning / Case Based Reasoning system. It makes extensive use of an automated case representation editor and background information.

Memory-based reasoning approach for pattern recognition of binary images

Template matching is concerned with measuring the similarity between patterns of two objects. This paper proposes a memory-based reasoning approach for pattern recognition of binary images with a large template set. It seems that memory-based reasoning intrinsically requires a large database. Moreover, some binary image recognition problems inherently need large template sets, such as the recognition of Chinese characters which needs thousands of templates. The proposed algorithm is based on the Connection Machine, which is the most massively parallel machine to date, using a multiresolution method to search for the matching template. The approach uses the pyramid data structure for the multiresolution representation of templates and the input image pattern. For a given binary image it scans the template pyramid searching the match. A binary image of N × N pixels can be matched in O(log N) time complexity by our algorithm and is independent of the number of templates. Implementation of the proposed scheme is described in detail.

A Multiple-Context Equality-Based Reasoning System

Expert systems are too slow. This work attacks that problem by speeding up a useful system component that remembers facts and tracks down simple consequences. The redesigned component can assimilate new facts more quickly because it uses a compact, grammar-based internal representation to deal with whole classes of equivalent expressions at once. It can support faster hypothetical reasoning because it remembers the consequences of several assumption sets at once. The new design is targeted for situations in which many of the stored facts are equalities. The deductive machinery considered here supplements stored premises with simple new conclusions. The stored premises include permanently asserted facts and temporarily adopted assumptions. The new conclusions are derived by substituting equals for equals and using the properties of the logical connectives AND, Or, and NOT. The deductive system provides supporting premises for its derived conclusions. Reasoning that involves quantifiers is beyond the scope of its limited and automatic operation. The expert system of which the reasoning system is a component is expected to be responsible for overall control of reasoning.

Model-Based Reasoning: A Principled Approach for Software Engineering

Lee M.H., Model-Based Reasoning: A Principled Approach for Software Engineering, Software - Concepts and Tools,19(4), pp179-189, 2000.

Characterising Model-Based Reasoning

Lee M.H., Characterising Model-Based Reasoning, Proc. 10th Int. Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, (DX'99), Loch Awe, Scotland, 1999, pp140-146.

The Use of Graph Grammars for Model-based Reasoning in Diagnostic Expert Systems

Flasinski M. and Lee M.H., The Use of Graph Grammars for Model-based Reasoning in Diagnostic Expert Systems, Prace Informatyczne, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, 9, 1999, pp147-165.

Combining and choosing case base maintenance algorithms

Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) uses past experiences to solve new problems. The quality of the past experiences, which are stored as cases in a case base, is a big factor in the performance of a CBR system. The system's competence may be improved by adding problems to the case base after they have been solved and their solutions verified to be correct. However, from time to time, the case base may have to be refined to reduce redundancy and to get rid of any noisy cases that may have been introduced. Many case base maintenance algorithms have been developed to delete noisy and redundant cases. However, different algorithms work well in different situations and it may be difficult for a knowledge engineer to know which one is the best to use for a particular case base. In this thesis, we investigate ways to combine algorithms to produce better deletion decisions than the decisions made by individual algorithms, and ways to choose which algorithm is best for a given case base at a given time. We analyse five of the most commonly-used maintenance algorithms in detail and show how the different algorithms perform better on different datasets. This motivates us to develop a new approach: maintenance by a committee of experts (MACE). MACE allows us to combine maintenance algorithms to produce a composite algorithm which exploits the merits of each of the algorithms that it contains. By combining different algorithms in different ways we can also define algorithms that have different trade-offs between accuracy and deletion. While MACE allows us to define an infinite number of new composite algorithms, we still face the problem of choosing which algorithm to use. To make this choice, we need to be able to identify properties of a case base that are predictive of which maintenance algorithm is best. We examine a number of measures of dataset complexity for this purpose. These provide a numerical way to describe a case base at a given time. We use the numerical description to develop a meta-case-based classification system. This system uses previous experience about which maintenance algorithm was best to use for other case bases to predict which algorithm to use for a new case base. Finally, we give the knowledge engineer more control over the deletion process by creating incremental versions of the maintenance algorithms. These incremental algorithms suggest one case at a time for deletion rather than a group of cases, which allows the knowledge engineer to decide whether or not each case in turn should be deleted or kept. We also develop incremental versions of the complexity measures, allowing us to create an incremental version of our meta-case-based classification system. Since the case base changes after each deletion, the best algorithm to use may also change. The incremental system allows us to choose which algorithm is the best to use at each point in the deletion process.