Using real option methods as a tool to determine optimal building work programs

References

• Alexander, M., & Thomas, M. (2015). Service life prediction and performance testing – Current developments and practical applications. Cement and Concrete Research, 78, 155–164. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.05.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allehaux, D., & Tessier, P. (2002). Evaluation of the functional obsolescence of building services in European office buildings. Energy and Buildings, 34, 127–133. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037877880100104910.1016/S0378-7788(01)00104-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arboleda, C. A., & Abraham, D. M. (2006). Evaluation of flexibility in capital investments of infrastructure systems. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13(3), 254–274. citeulike-article-id: 4252984. doi:10.1108/09699980610669688
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, T. M., & Crack, T. F. (2000). Option pricing in the real world: A generalized binomial model with applications to real options. Otago. Retrieved from http://www.realoptions.org/papers2003/ArnoldSSRN_ID240554.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ashuri, B., Kashani, H., & Lu, J. (2011). An investment analysis framework for energy retrofit in existing buildings. In T. Sulbaran (Ed.),47th ASC annual international conference Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
   Google Scholar
• Baum, A., & McElhinney, A. (2000). The causes and effects of depreciation in office buildings: a ten year update. Working papers in land management & development. Reading: University of Reading. Retrieved from http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/27211/
   Google Scholar
• Bocchini, P., & Frangopol, D. M. (2011). A probabilistic computational framework for bridge network optimal maintenance scheduling. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 96, 332–349. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2010.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyles, S. D., Zhang, Z. M., & Waller, S. T. (2010). Optimal maintenance and repair policies under nonlinear preferences. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 16, 11–20. doi:10.1061/(asce)1076-0342(2010)16:1(11)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucher, C., & Frangopol, D. M. (2006). Optimization of lifetime maintenance strategies for deteriorating structures considering probabilities of violating safety, condition, and cost thresholds. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 21(1), 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.probengmech.2005.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chai, C., De Brito, J., Gaspar, P. L., & Silva, A. (2015). Statistical modelling of the service life prediction of painted surfaces. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 19, 173–185. doi:10.3846/1648715X.2015.103185310.3846/1648715X.2015.1031853
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching, J., & Leu, S.-S. (2009). Bayesian updating of reliability of civil infrastructure facilities based on condition-state data and fault-tree model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94, 1962–1974. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2009.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, C.-Y., & Durango-Cohen, P. L. (2008). Incorporating maintenance effectiveness in the estimation of dynamic infrastructure performance models. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 23, 174–188. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.2008.00532.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, J. C., Ross, S. A., & Rubinstein, M. (1979). Option pricing: A simplified approach. Journal of Financial Economics, 7, 34. Retrieved from http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jfinec:v:7:y:1979:i:3:p:229-263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curschellas, P., Bühlmann, R., Froese, R., Gebhard, R., Kühne, F., Rüdenauer, K., … Zöllig, S. (2011). Element type catalogue EAK (Elementarten-Katalog) D/11 – Construction cost benchmarks (Kostenkennwerte). Zürich: CRB.
   Google Scholar
• Dixit, A. K., & Pindyck, R. S. (1993). Investment under uncertainty (II.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, P. J., & Bowen, P. A. (1998). Practices, barriers and benefits of risk management process in building services costs estimation: comment. Construction Management and Economics, 16, 105–108. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/014461998372646.
   Google Scholar
• Flores-Colen, I., & de Brito, J. (2010). A systematic approach for maintenance budgeting of buildings façades based on predictive and preventive strategies. Construction and Building Materials, 24, 1718–1729. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.02.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, D. N., & Bhargav, S. (2006). Project management quality and the value of flexible strategies. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13, 275–289. doi:10.1108/09699980610669697
   Google Scholar
• Frangopol, D. M., & Neves, L. A. C. (2008). Optimization of Life-Cycle Maintenance Strategies under Uncertainties: Role of Inspections. In B. H. V. Topping & M. Papadrakakis (Eds.), Trends In Computational Structures Technology (pp. 55–74). Stirlingshire: Saxe-Coburg Publications. http://doi.org/10.4203/csets.19.3
   Google Scholar
• Fruguglietti, E., Pasqualato, G., & Spallarossa, E. (2012). Bridge management system implementation in Italy: Pontis® and other BMS application in Italy. In: F. Biondini & D. M. Frangopol (Eds.), IABMAS 2012: 6th international conference on bridge maintenance, safety and management. Stresa, Italy: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Greden, L. V., & Glicksman, L. R. (2004). Options valuation of architectural flexibility: A case study of the option to convert to office space. Real options 8th annual international conference. Montreal, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Hajdin, R. (2001). KUBA-MS: The Swiss bridge management system. In P. C. Chang (Ed.), Structures 2001: A Structural Engineering Odyssey, (Vol. 109, p. 49). Washington, DC: ASCE. doi:10.1061/40558(2001)49
   Google Scholar
• Hui, E. C. M., & Ng, I. M. H. (2008). A risk-based option pricing strategy for property valuation: an empirical study in Hong Kong. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 13, 48–59. doi:10.1108/13664380810882075
   Google Scholar
• Jin, X., Li, L., & Ni, J. (2009). Option model for joint production and preventive maintenance system. International Journal of Production Economics, 119, 347–353. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jongen, R. A., Morshuis, P. H. F., Gulski, E., Smit, J. J., Maksymiuk, J., & Janssen, A. L. J. (2006). Application of statistical methods for making maintenance decisions within power utilities. Electrical Insulation Magazine, IEEE. doi:10.1109/MEI.2006.253418 Retrieved from: repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:3c60e104-0f4b-4c10-b7c7-e48cfaa949ef/196298.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kalligeros, K. (2010). Real options in engineering systems design. In H. Black Nembhard & M. Aktan (Eds.), Real options in engineering design, operations, and management (pp. 123–149). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Kalligeros, K., & de Neufville, R. (2006). Platforms and real options in large-scale engineering and systems. Engineering systems division. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Khan, F. I., & Haddara, M. M. (2003). Risk-based maintenance (RBM): A quantitative approach for maintenance/inspection scheduling and planning. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 16, 561–573. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2003.08.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobayashi, K., & Kaito, K. (2010). Random proportional Weibull Hazard model: Application to large-scale information systems. Facilities, 29(13/14), 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Kobayashi, K., & Kuhn, K. (2007). Decentralized life-cycle cost evaluation and aggregated efficiency, in the book “the management and measurement of infrastructure: Performance, efficiency and innovation”. Cheltenham: New Horizons in Regional Science.
   Google Scholar
• Kodukula, P., & Papudesu, C. (2006). Project valuation using real options: A practitioner’s guide. (2nd ed.). Ford Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross.
   Google Scholar
• Koide, Y., Kaito, K., & Abe, M. (2001). Life cycle cost analysis of bridges where the real options are considered. In P. C. Das, D. M. Frangopol, & A. S. Nowak (Eds.), Current and future trends in bridge design, construction and maintenance 2 (pp. 387–394). London: Thomas Telford. http://doi.org/10.1680/caftibdcam2.30916.
   Google Scholar
• Lethanh, N., & Adey, B. T. (2013). Investigation of the use of a Weibull model for the determination of optimal road link intervention strategies. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10, 684–696. doi:10.1080/15732479.2012.758641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lethanh, N., & Adey, B. T. (2014). A real option methodology to determine the optimal intervention windows for railway infrastructure. In C. A. Brebbia, N. Tomii, P. Tzieropoulos & J. M. Mera (Eds.), Computers in railways XIV (Vol. 135). WIT Transactions on the Built Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Lethanh, N., Adey, B. T., & Fernando, D. N. (2014). Optimal intervention strategies for multiple objects affected by manifest and latent deterioration processes. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(5), 1–13, doi:10.1080/15732479.2014.889178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lounis, Z., & Vanier, D. J. (2000). A multiobjective and stochastic system for building maintenance management. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 15, 320–329. doi:10.1111/0885-9507.00196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marseguerra, M., & Zio, E. (2000). Optimizing maintenance and repair policies via a combination of genetic algorithms and Monte Carlo simulation. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 68, 69–83. doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(00)00007-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martins, J., Marques, R., & Cruz, C. (2013). Real options in infrastructure: Revisiting the literature. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 21, 4014026. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mata, J. (2011). Interpretation of concrete dam behaviour with artificial neural network and multiple linear regression models. Engineering Structures, 33, 903–910. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menassa, C. C. (2011). Evaluating sustainable retrofits in existing buildings under uncertainty. Energy and Buildings, 43, 3576–3583. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.09.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendes Silva, J. A. R., & Falorca, J. (2009). A model plan for buildings maintenance with application in the performance analysis of a composite facade cover. Construction and Building Materials, 23, 3248–3257. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moncmanová, A. (2007). Environmental Deterioration of Materials. In S. Slovak Technical University (Ed.), State-of-the-art in science and engineering (Vol. 28). Southampton: WIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nembhard, H. B., & Aktan, M. (2009). Real options in engineering design, operations, and management. CRC Press.10.1201/9781420071702
   Google Scholar
• de Neufville, R., Scholtes, S., & Wang, T. (2006). Real options by spreadsheet: Parking garage case example. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 12, 107–111. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2006)12:2(107)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orcesi, A. D., & Frangopol, D. M. (2011). A stakeholder probability-based optimization approach for cost-effective bridge management under financial constraints. Engineering Structures, 33, 1439–1449. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira, P., Rodrigues, A., & Rocha Armada, M.J. (2006). The optimal timing for the construction of an International Airport: A real options approach with multiple stochastic factors and shocks. Minho: University of Minho.
   Google Scholar
• Santa-Cruz, S., & Heredia-Zavoni, E. (2009). Maintenance and decommissioning real options models for life-cycle cost-benefit analysis of offshore platforms. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7, 733–745. doi:10.1080/15732470902842903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarja, A., Schiessl, P., Lay, S., Vesikari, E., Miller, J. B., & Söderqvist, M. K. 5 Life cycle management process. (2006). In A. Sarja (Ed.), Predictive and optimised life cycle management – Buildings and infrastructure (1st ed.). Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Shohet, I. M. (2003). Key performance indicators for maintenance of health-care facilities. Facilities, 21, 5–12.10.1108/02632770310460496
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, P. D., Small, E. P., Johnson, M., & Marshall, A. R. (1998). The Pontis bridge management system. Structural Engineering International, 8, 303–308. doi:10.2749/101686698780488758
   Google Scholar
• Trigeorgis, L. (1996). Real options – Managerial Flexibility and strategies in resource allocation. (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trigeorgis, L., & Mason, S. P. (2001). Valuing managerial flexibility. In E. S. Schwartz & L. Trigeorgis (Eds.), Real Options and Investment under Uncertainty - Classical Readings and Recent Contributions , (1st ed., pp. 47–60). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, T., & de Neufville, R. (1996). Analysis of real options in hydropower construction projects – A case study in China. Engineering systems division. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Y.-M., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2007). A comparison of neural network, evidential reasoning and multiple regression analysis in modelling bridge risks. Expert Systems with Applications, 32, 336–348. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2005.11.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodward, D. G. (1997). Life cycle costing – Theory, information acquisition and application. International Journal of Project Management, 15, 335–344. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00089-0
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, X. Q., & Gao, H. (2010). Optimal performance-based building facility management. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 25, 269–284. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.2009.00633.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, T., Sundararajan, S. K., & Tseng, C.-L. (2004). Highway development decision-making under uncertainty: A real options approach. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 10, 23–32. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2004)10:1(23)
   Google Scholar