kl800.com省心范文网

4 Chapter IV V


Chapter IV Case study
4.4 The routine pricing process for the three models In the Chapter II, we have discussed the basic pricing process. Then in 4.3, we studied the three cases for pricing models. From the descriptions in the two parts, we can find the routine pricing process for the three models. 4.4.1 The lowest price awarding model The pricing mechanism for this model is always implemented through open bidding or public sale. To a single product or engineering work procurement, it is most simple to implement. That’s, 1) issuing the bidding information to the outside; 2) censoring the qualification condition of the comers; 3) distributing the bidding papers to those qualified bidders; 4) answering the bidding papers—bid responses by the bidders; 5) opening the bids and comparing the price; 6) ascertaining the final supplier through calculating the float ratio at the benchmark price; 7) awarding the bid and contracting. Let’s take the common industrial product procurement for example to explain the pricing process, the contents of each step and the questions that should be mentioned. (1) Phase one--Procurement planning period The procurement plan means the preparative works by the purchaser before the procurement which includes: ·field illustration—drawing the clear procurement demarcation; ·product illustration—the technology standards and other items to be explanation; · procurement resource construction—constructing the procurement executive organization, such as bidding center, procurement group; ·market survey—analyzing the market characteristics, how many suppliers and the acceptable contract terms; ·restrictive condition illustration—the restrictive premises such as breach responsibility, self-proved ability of the bidders, subcontract; ·founding procurement organization—it comes from inner of the developer organization such as the engineering department, budget department, law affair department; or the outside institutions such as the budget service companies, specialty institutions, trade alliance; ·selecting contract categories—fixed price contract, cost +fee contract, work time and material contract (T&M), etc. (Clough, 1986) When we select the contract type, we should consider the following factors: 1) the actual cost and the risk evaluation of the market price changing; 2)the veracity for the price information; 3)comparison between the procurement period and the project period to avoid the service discontinuity; 4)the evaluation on the bargainer’s finance grade specially the ability to profit from this project procurement; 5)restrictions on subcontract—the subcontract is restricted strictly on engineering work and goods trade (Xia and Zhu, 2004). (2) Phase two—solicitation planning As mentioned in 4.2.1, solicitation is to gain the information to ascertain the benchmark price this product procurement (Xia and Zhu, 2004). In this phase there are the following works to do: ·standard-format proposal—the draft contract, the standard papers for explicating the project demands (the technology standards, bills, time and frequency of service, bidding
– Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao

Studies on three pricing-decision models for Beijing ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU

- 56 -

approaches, etc.), the standard bidding text (backgrounds, punishment rules, evaluation contents and the emphases, pricing regulations, etc.); ·stipulating for and evaluating the benchmark price by the expert committee—the committee inquires about the market price information based on the prescribed technology standard and ascertains the benchmark price through Delphi, then tests the benchmark price and set the condition for adjustment; · compiling the bidding papers—including SOW, product demands, approach for modifying the draft contract, how to reply the papers, etc. According to Xia and Zhu (2004), it is necessary to tell the potential bidders completely and clearly. The evaluation criteria are used to mark the bidders’ proposals and achieve the better-worse taxis. On the goods procurement the evaluation standard includes the goods’ cost and the additive price; ·issuing the bidding papers and solicitation—on common industrial product procurement, all preparations are completed. Then the bidders should reply the final price and promises to the bidding organization conforming to the requirements in the papers. During this phase, it is necessary to point out that because of the buyer's market; the contract text is propitious for the purchaser. If the contract text gets across the censoring of the Beijing Construction Committee and Beijing Industry-Commerce Bureau, the bidders seldom modify the terms. Of course, if there is the price alliance or the restrictive fields for the bidders by the government, when they require modifying the contract terms, the purchaser can negotiate individually. If there are blurry descriptions in the papers, the purchaser should organize the bidding meeting to explain to all the bidders openly. (3) Phase three—accessing and checking up the bidders’ proposals The last step is to access the bidders’ proposals and awards the bid. The committee for the purchaser checks the replied papers to see whether it answers for the demands from the solicitation questions and demands. The eligible ones enter the price comparison step. Then the committee selects the bidder with lowest price as the unique candidate and reports to the purchaser for approval. (4) Phase four--awarding bid and contracting At last, the purchaser declares to award the bid and thanks other bidders for their sustainment and hopes them to attend the next procurement. Then the both sides contract based on the foregone papers. 4.4.2 The integrative accessing model According to Chen (2002), the first and second phases of this model are same with the lowest price awarding model while there are some necessary conditions in the solicitation planning. Taking the chromatic egg of BJFL for example, the necessary conditions include the following contents: (1) Assessing criteria ·formatted text for the bargainer’s proposals—the bargainers write down their understandings on the project in the proposal with photos, drawings, sheets, etc. He should answer whether agreeing the presented technology precondition or not; how to apply and lie on the backgrounds, site condition and other site restrictions; the opinions on the contract terms. ·formatted text for the bargainer’s technology plan assessing which consists of technology specification, technology preparation including human resource planning, station responsibility and technology guarantee mechanism, detailed organization planning, etc.
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 57 -

· measures and methods for project management, including the site plane planning, resource planning, management systems for quality, schedule, cost, contract, information, etc. ·finance and qualification terms for the bargainers—the bargainer should identify its finance degree, award rating, credit grade by providing true and legal attestations. Because of the complexity of the project, there is more work to do during the preparation phase. (2) Solicitation planning It is obvious that the integrative evaluation model is more complicated than the lowest price awarding model during the solicitation phase. ·bidders meeting—before the bidders compiling the bidding papers according to the requests from the purchaser’s formatted texts, the committee should convoke all bidders to hold a meeting. The both sides enquire and answer for each other openly so that all bidders can understand the overall requirements (technology, contract, site condition, etc.) completely. The records for the meeting are printed as the effective appendix for the bidding papers. ·advertising—the committee advertises the procurement information publicly to invite more qualified bidders to attend the bidding process if necessary. (3) The expert assessing and negotiation It is the core work for selection process to the purchaser. ·reclaiming the proposals from bidders at the determinative time. The proposals include technology-response part, quoted-price part and contract-response part. ·assessing the proposals—the committee assesses the technology-response parts at first, assessing the qualification attestations, foregone performance and construction plan to eliminate the unqualified bidders; then assessing the contract-response parts and quoted price parts. The assessing process, especially for the project procurement with the restriction-list of qualified bidders by government in the incomplete market, should consider the items as following: 1) The data right—the one who possesses the project data right wins initiative in the negotiation. For example, the purchaser holds the initiative for the artwork procurement while passiveness for the monopolization negotiation. It is the basic point for preparing the negotiation strategies. 2) The measures for rewards and punishment—prescribing the compensation responsibilities for each side’s breach of faith. 3) The components of the fee—the signification of the procurement price. 4) The payment and delivery planning—the time, location, etc; ratio of payment. 5) The practical investigation—benchmark price; comparison between the faith of technology and price in the bidding documents and the purchaser’s proposal; inspection on opposite’s performance or capability; actual quality controlling process in the factory, etc. In this step, the expert committee should check whether the purchaser’s proposal is accordant with the audit prescriptions by the government on public project procurement. 6) The negotiation strategies and planning—it is emphasized for preparing the negotiation strategies and negotiation plan on the core of purchaser’s proposal and the emphases specified by the expert committee. Then the committee submits the strategies and plans for approval by the purchaser organization to invite the bidders with qualified technology proposal to attend the negotiations. 7) The evaluation and negotiation—the committee evaluates the business proposals of the bidders with qualified technology proposals; then combines the scores of technology proposal and the scores of business proposal into integrative values for each bidder with
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 58 -

qualified technology proposal. At last, the committee selects the one with highest integrative score as the optimal result. During the process of integrative evaluation, there might be many negotiations between the committee and each bidder for many times after the technology proposal assessing, for example, the artwork procurement, the both sides should evaluate and compare the effects of the swatch vs. its values with others’. But also there might be few negotiations on some special project procurement, such as some landscape engineering procurement because the shop drawings are clear, so the both sides should only negotiate on effects vs. price individually. It is the core for the whole process of the model. Of course, there are many methods applied in the assessing process in Beijing. For example, Weight-filtration Method is the most prevailing method applied in property procurement in Beijing. In step of assessing technology and business proposals, for example, we evaluate the technology proposal for the D&B project first, eliminate those bidders with unqualified technology proposals based on scorings and then evaluate the business proposals. In this step, we eliminate those bidders whose price is beyond ± 20% of the benchmark price (or ± 15%, ± 10%, prescribed by the purchaser not in the bidding papers but unilaterally; or the average value of business prices selected from all bidders with qualified technology proposals). That’s, if the bidder’s technology proposal is unqualified, or price in business proposal is beyond the effective field, he should be screened out. This method is called Filtration Method. Then in step of integrative assessing for the final scores, we usually use Weight Method. For example, the D&B project procurement of BJFL hall. The evaluation indicators are summed up as follows in Table 4.3.
Number 1 2 A B Assessing items Qualification and history performance C Scoring criteria 0-2.9: unqualified; 3.0-3.9: qualified; 4.0-4.9: perfect; 5.0: optimal … … … … … … 100 D Weight 5% E Bidder1 F Bidder2 G Bidder3 H … … Remarks

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Technology proposals

Deepened plan and shop drawings Construction planning Site management, service promises Contract-responses conditions Price Other favorable conditions

25% 12% 8% 10% 35% 5% 100%

Summation

Table 4.3 The Weight Assessing Method applied in integrative assessing model for BJFL exhibition hall procurement It is needful to explain that the assessing items in column B, the selection criteria by Delphi Method, are brought forth to all bidders after the sufficient discussion by the committee. The weights in column C are of the significance for the assessing items that are put forward by the committee showed in purchaser’s proposals.
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 59 -

Business proposals

Furthermore, there are many other types of integrative sheets, such as the integrative assessing sheet for BJPR in Appendix. If the evaluation on business proposals is hard to score on price condition, or the committee wants to perform quantitative description, it can be implemented by dint of the descent function model, such as: 100*A/B, 0.8B<A≤B Y=f(A)= 100*(2-A/B), B<A≤1.2B 0, other conditions Also, we can simulate other cubic convex function, such as: Y=f(x)=ax3+bx2+cx+d, a<0. The curve likes: Score 100 60 0 price
80% of the benchmark price Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU 90% of the benchmark price Benchmark price 120% of the benchmark price

Legend: A—the bidder’s price; B—the benchmark price Photo 4.1 The demonstration of a cubic convex function for the assessing model Usually, the unattached filtration for bidding called in Beijing market means that, when the relation between A and B is beyond 0.8B<A≤B or B<A≤1.2B, the bidder’s price should be taken as cost risk to be rejected by the committee. ―A<0.8B‖ means that the bidding price is lower than the average profit level set by the purchaser out and away and unreasonably. Except for fateful breakthrough on technology, it is hard to believe that the bidding price is actual and right. ―A>1.2B‖ means that the bidding price is higher than the average profit level set by the purchaser. Perhaps the bidder writes the number or calculates wrong, or its abilities of management and technology can’t reach the level described in its technology proposal. Moreover, we should notice the collusion by some bidders. When the technology proposals from different bidders are the same contents, or there are the same prices in the business proposals from different bidders, the committee needs to assess whether they collude with each other. If the technology proposals are the same, they collude; if the prices in unit price bidding for single product procurement or discounts to the benchmark price are same, we can’t consider they collude absolutely at once (of course, if the texts are same, the collusion is absolute), then we can hold a meeting to ask the bidders to offer price individually and synchronously. Or, the committee organizes to re- censor the bidders or modify the quotation to ask the bidders quote
– Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 60 -

price extempore and synchronously. Certainly, the purchaser should prescribe the regulation that all bidders must shut off their communication channels, for example, mobile phone. 8) Report on selecting supplier—the result of the integrative assessing model is to ascertain one or some suppliers. It is required that the assessing process, evaluation gist, quantitative analyses model, accidents in the process and the corresponding measures took, the comparison mode, the propositional supplier and the evaluation on the whole process are should be written in the report to the purchaser for approval. (4) Awarding and contract management After approving the report submitted by the committee, the purchaser organizes to assign the contract with the supplier/provider/contractor. If the purchaser thinks that the result is beyond his expectation, he would negate the result. Then he should deal with the legal knottiness with the bidders because the committee is only his executive organization. The negotiation is a complex and transigent process. There are more negotiations on the artwork procurement and monopolization procurement than the D&B project procurement because the former two ones are more complicated than the latter one. 4.4.3 The strategic negotiation model Based on that the procurement approaches are mature for Beijing real estate market, the report prompts the strategic negotiation model to deal with the repeated bidding for some projects or the projects difficult for quantitative analyses. The process for the strategic negotiation model is same with the integrative assessing model. The difference exists in the emphases for the two models. In the phase of censoring the qualification and advertising the bidding information, the purchaser considers not only the opposite with ability to providing the qualified service, but also the intellect for the purchaser’s style of development and management by the potential bidders. The purchaser requires the bidders to recognize the trade model and be fit for his profit ratio. So the scope of the bidders is parochial—to be restrict to those bidders with several times for cooperation between both sides. The core is to assess the cooperation condition and inspection of the bidders’ performance. During the step of assessing proposals, the bargainer doesn’t always provide the detailed design plan, drawings and honor qualification, etc. What they provides are of that: 1) the reference-standards for the future cooperation; 2) description of the service level; 3) introduction for the management philosophies; 4) evaluation on profits through the strategic cooperation; 5) the discount of price at the affirmatory service level; 6)opinions on cooperation contracts and the emendatory terms, and other items. It gains the response, resonance and recognition instead of the detailed technology proposals and business proposals as described in D&B projects. During the negotiation period, the work emphases are that the partition of right and benefit between the both sides, the guarantee mechanism for the service level (human resource, organization and management, operation actions, etc.), correction on the conflict-resolving mechanism from foregone cooperation experience and the profit analyses (cooperation profit distribution; analyses of trade profit level.). On contract management, the strategic negotiation model provides a cooperation frame with no sum in the agreements. When executing and implementing some project, they assign contracts in addition.
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 61 -

So we can say that the strategic negotiation model squints towards the macroscopical in principle. 4.5 The cruces in the selection process Based on the analyses on the procurement process for the three models, we can conclude the cores for the evaluation process. Selection of pricing models is interrelated with the contract model. On procurement of D&B project and product with subjective creation, the purchaser adopts the integrative assessing model usually. In fact, the design work can be taken as article creation. On the negotiation under restricting lists of providers, because the data right belongs to bidders, the purchaser should consider his own contributions for the city construction and development, free advertisement for using the product and service or the political appearance for the opposite. Those soft conditions can be taken as subjective creation. So the project procurement always applies the integrative assessing model with subjective creation. It is remarkable for the qualification censoring and enactments of technology standard when talking about the lowest price awarding model used on the standard industrial products/service. The qualification checkup is the basic admittance for the process while the enactment of technology standard is of the contract responsibility. So, the precondition for the lowest price awarding model is ―eligible technology proposal‖. The benchmark price is emphasized for three models. Generally, the benchmark price is obtained through Delphi Method that is especially true in the lowest price awarding model and integrative assessing model. There are about 20-30%project procurement failure for the false benchmark price presented by the expert committee. To the strategic negotiation model, the benchmark price is the reference standard for both sides. For example, we can adopt the decoration level of a building (e.g. a waiting room) nearby the bus station which would be leased to the traffic operator by some developer to be the benchmark price for decoration of the latter one. The benchmark price acts as a hint with the function of seductive for the bidders. It is possible that when the benchmark price from the purchaser is wrong, because of the credulity of the bidders, he quotes the price wrong without serious-minded checkage on the benchmark price. Thus there is the risk for unable to perform the contract. It is important that the purchaser requests some sum of caution money. Usually the bidders are asked to pay certain sum of caution money showing the sincerity and promise. Especially in the foregone two models, when the bidder is failure in the assessing process, the caution money is sent back soon, while he wins in the evaluation process, the caution money is turned to be other sponsion. The caution money system is a prevailing method to restrict the bidders’ action. The government audit is unable to be ignored on public project procurement in Beijing. Product, service and works soever, the contract text, qualification standard and advertisement approach should be audited by the government. Many project procurement invites public bidding in the international fields, so the bidding papers, bidding process and results are all audited by the government—usually the governing department of each industry. The bidding center which belongs to the local Construction Committee (LCC) of Beijing City performs the bidding function. The bidding centers are audited by the LCC on the contents such as, the procurement planning, bidding text, advertisement text, primordial information for the experts to be invited, comparison process and analyses. It is the system to prevent the corruption in the bidding process (Chen, 2002).
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 62 -

These important points are obtained from the experience times and times, so they are the precious wealth for the purchasers and bidders in Beijing estate market. 4.6 Case study for the application of the accessorial decision technique In the description in Chapter III, we know the six accessorial decision methods to help calculating for the final copartners. Here we take one case to strengthen the practicability of the discussion before. Case—the hierarchy analyses: the decoration procurement Assuming the selected procurement model is the integrative assessing model. The client requests the priority ratings on ―price‖, ―manufacture period‖, ―quality‖ and ―contractor’s performance‖. These four criteria consist of the first level of the evaluation indicator systems. Then we analyze the affecting factors as follows: 1) The indicators of the price: 1.1Benchmark price of the bidding; 1.2Average unit price of manpower; 1.3Unit price of materials; 1.4Using price of the establishment/equipment 2) The indicators of the quality: 2.1Quality/effect promises; 2.2Manufacturing planning; 2.3Quality guarantee measures; 2.4Quality performance; 2.5Quality management planning 3) The indicators affecting the manufacture period: 3.1Promises of the manufacture period; 3.2Schedule planning; 3.3Measures during the special period; 3.4Time-controlling measures 4) The indicators of the contractor’s social reputation: 4.1Foregone contract-implementation condition; 4.2Financing condition; 4.3Honour obtained. The total assessing levels are described as followed. Referring to the Figure 3.2 The principle for the AHP, we see:

Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU

– Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 63 -

Goal hierarchy

Decision C

Quality Rule hierarchy

Period

Price

Reputation

Son-hierar chy

Bidding plan Bidder 1 Bidder 2 Bidder 3

Figure 4.4 The decoration procurement assessing indicator system levels Then we calculate the evaluation matrix. Supposing the evaluation matrix of the evaluation results for the four guide lines is: 1 5 2 5 1/5 1 2/5 1 1/2 5/2 1 5/2 (C-A) 1/5 1 2/5 1 Its unitary eigenvalue vector is (0.5 0.083 0.167 0.25), which presents the weights for the four guide lines. We have C.R.=0 (the concordance test) We invite the experts to evaluate and obtain the quality indicator matrix: 1 1/3 2/3 2/3 1/3 3 1 2 2 1 3/2 1/2 1 1 1/2 (A1-B) 3/2 1/2 1 1 1/2 3 1 2 2 1
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 64 -

2.1Quality/effect promises

2.2Manufacturing planning

2.3Quality guarantee measures

2.4Quality performance

2.5Quality management planning

3.1Promises of the manufacture period planning

3.2Schedule planning

3.3Measures during the special period planning

3.4Time-controlling measures planning

1.1Benchmark price of the bidding planning

1.2Average unit price of manpower planning

1.3Unit price of materials planning

1.4Using price of the establishment/equipment planning

4.1Foregone contract-implementation condition planning

4.2Financing condition planning

4.3Honour obtained planning

Its unitary eigenvalue vector is (0.1 0.3 0.15 0.15 C.R.=0. The schedule indicator matrix is: 1 1/2 1/2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1/3 1/6 1/6 Its unitary eigenvalue vector is (0.188 0.375 0.375 C.R.=0. The price factor matrix is:

0.3), testing the concordance for

3 6 6 (A2-B) 1 0.062), testing the concordance for

1 7 5 7 1/7 1 5/7 1 7/5 1/5 1 7/5 (A3-B) 1/7 1 5/7 1 Its unitary eigenvalue vector is (0.438 0.062 0.062 0.438), testing the concordance for C.R.=0. The social reputation factor matrix is: 1 1 3 1 1 3 (A4-B) 1/3 1/3 1 Its unitary eigenvalue vector is (0.4286 0.4286 0.1428), testing the concordance for C.R.=0. If the experts score the three bidders against each guide line during the field of (10, 5, 0, -5, -10) in which the 10 means perfect while the -10 presents the worst condition. Then: According to quality guide line: bidder 1 (5, 0, 5, 5, 0); bidder 2 (10, 5, 0, 5, 5); bidder 3 (0, -5, 0, 0, 0); According to the schedule guide line: bidder 1 (5, 5, 0, 5); bidder 2 (10, 10, 5, 5); bidder 3 (0, -5, -5, 0); According to the price guide line: bidder 1 (5, 5, 0, -5); bidder 2 (10, 10, 5, 5); bidder 3 (5, 0, -5, 0); According to the social reputation guide line: bidder 1 (5, 5, 0); bidder 2 (10, 10, 10); bidder 3 (0, 0, -5). Then the marks for each indicator for the three bidders are calculated and listed as followed.
Serial number 1 2 3 4 Bidder Bidder 1 Bidder 2 Bidder 3 Quality 0.5 2 4.75 -1.5 Schedule 0.083 3.125 7.815 -3.750 Price 0.167 0.310 7.50 1.880 Social reputation 0.25 4.286 10 -0.714 Total mark for the bidder 2.095 6.776 0.234 remarks weight

Table 4.4 The total rating table for levels The final vector of the three biddings is (2.095, 6.776, 0.234), in which the 6.776 is the maximum value, so the bidder 2 is the copartner to be selected. We can find that the accessorial calculation methods are the useful routes from the evaluation model to the final copartners. 4.7 Summary
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 65 -

This Chapter presents three cases corresponding to three pricing models. The report analyzes the pricing mechanism, project backgrounds, and main factors for pricing decision, comparison process and benefit/loss for each part in the mechanism. Then it concludes the ecumenical procedure for each model and the essentials for the bidding process. At last, the report presents three cases to demonstrate the accessorial decision methods to strengthen the practicability for the issues.

Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU

– Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 66 -

Chapter V Delphi Method: the decision and analyses
5.1 Introduction As introduced in Chapter III, Delphi Method is applied on project procurement in Beijing estate market widely as an important method to construct evaluation criteria and models for comparing the technology proposals and business proposals. In this chapter it describes and analyzes the decision process and result for each of the three pricing decision models by four rounds of Delphi Method. The basic think for selecting the suitable evaluation model by applying the Delphi Method is that: selecting experts to found the committee; evaluating and selecting the selection criteria for the purchasers; based on that the committee evaluating these criteria and gaining weights for them by scoring-averaging; then amending the scores of the criteria for each model if necessary. The result of the Method is to gain series of selection criteria for the three models and the corresponding relation between the criteria and the models individually by demonstration checking. When applying the Multi attribute model analyzing the corresponding relationship the report seeks for the relevant selection criteria based on the project characteristics and also checks the dependability and feasibility for understanding the project characteristics from evaluation results. 5.2 The preparations for Delphi Method The main work preparing for the Delphi Method is t select eligible experts to constitute the committee for seeking selection criteria because the candidates selected are the decisive factors for subjective variance. A extreme hypothesis is, if we invite ten experts who are all from budget department of the purchaser’s company to evaluate the selection criteria for models, perhaps they emphasizes more on the price factors but despises the technology factors on a D&B project procurement. The experts of the committee should be of various but relative specialty directions, so that the evaluation from each expert would be affected by his profession experience, trade characteristics, occupation tendency (quantitative or qualitative) and specialty degree. Then they can evaluate the criteria from various directions avoiding the unilateralism. So, the first criterion for the expert is that whether he has the senior work experience or not in Beijing property market. If he doesn’t work in Beijing, or he doesn’t pursue the project procurement information, then it doesn’t insure the evaluation proper to the actual condition. Second, the expert invited should possess the basic engineering technology and marketing principle. Usually, the expert committee invited by the purchaser is the result of balancing the technology and price. So there are both technologists and budgeters in the committee synchronously. The technologists should know about some strategies for pricing and negotiation; while the budgeters should know some lore for technology and construction management, thus to lay out the relationship between the technology indicator and the price information and the comparability among the same technology indications. That’s, the structure should insure the representation and the veracity at same time. When constructing the committee in this report, the author invites ten experts who come from real estate trade, in which there are three experts are from development enterprises, two experts are of contractors, one expert is a supplier, one expert is an operator for fundamental establishment, one expert is a designer, one expert is from government, and the last one is an
– Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 67 -

Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU

independent majordomo from an intendance company. Their study fields cover the property industry of Beijing. However, it is not the thus ness in the interim report in August, 2005. Considering the cost expenditures cover not only the construction itself, but also the non-production expenditures such as, artwork procurement, fitment procurement, lease and inviting business, masterminding and sale advertisement, so the member of the committee is adjusted into the structure above (Table 5.1 The constitution of the interim report; Table 5.2 The constitution of the final report).
No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Name of interviewee Du Shaodong Xiao Yanxia Yang Guobiao Zheng Changli Zheng Yaoqin Wang Lili Liu Zhonghua Outline of the interviewee Chief supervisor of a contractor’s bidding center, senior engineer, bachelor Vice director of HKHD (a developer), honor doctor of Zhongshan University Project manager of Beijing Fuli (a developer), engineer, bachelor COO of a Huilongguan Project, senior architect, master President of Guangdong Han River Co. Beijing Branch (a contractor), senior engineer, bachelor General manager of Beijing Urban Construction Group (a contractor), senior architect, master Majordomo of Guangzhou Guangbao Intendance Co. (a consultant corporation), certificated intendance engineer, bachelor Senior supervisor of CIOB (HK), assistant engineer, graduated from CJU Outline of the interviewee Vice director of the Beijing Construction Committee, senior engineer, graduate from Shanghai Jiaotong University Vice director of HKHD (a developer), honor doctor of Zhongshan University Project manager of Beijing Fuli (a developer), engineer, bachelor COO of a Huilongguan Project, senior architect, master President of Guangdong Han River Co. Beijing Branch (a contractor), senior engineer, bachelor General manager of Beijing Urban Construction Group (a contractor), senior architect, master Majordomo of Guangzhou Guangbao Intendance Co. (a consultant corporation), certificated intendance engineer, bachelor Vice general manager of Beijing Yuetong Hotel Appliance Co. Ltd. General manager of the Third Branch of Beijing Bus Traffic Co. Ltd. The chief stylist of Beijing Jiahe Decoration Co. Ltd. Date/location June 28, 2005, Beijing June 28, 2005, Guangzhou July 20, 2005, Beijing July 21, 2005, Beijing July 21, 2005, Beijing August 5, 2005, Beijing July 07, 2005, Guangzhou

8

Liu Mengjiao

July 07, 2005, Beijing

Table 5.1 The constitution of the interim report
No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Name of interviewee Cheng Changying Xiao Yanxia Yang Guobiao Zheng Changli Zheng Yaoqin Wang Lili Liu Zhonghua Date/location November 25, 2005, Beijing June 28, 2005, Guangzhou July 20, 2005, Beijing July 21, 2005, Beijing July 21, 2005, Beijing August 5, 2005, Beijing July 07, 2005, Guangzhou

8 9 10

Ni Jinglin Zhou Shun Mo Jian

November 10, 2005, Beijing November 15, 2005, Beijing December 5, 2005, Beijing

Table 5.2 The constitution of the final report Before studying the pricing decision models, the author visits the experts one by one to explain the goals, aims and importance of this study and the proceedings needed to help the study; then introduce the work contents of the four rounds of the Delphi to seek for supports. It is euphorigenic that they accept the requests agreeably. The number of the experts, ten, is considered mainly from the viewpoint of statistics and calculation convenience.
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 68 -

5.3 The study contents for each step of Delphi Method As described above, there are four steps for applying the Delphi Method. 5.3.1 The first round: gaining evaluation criteria for decision-making 5.3.1.1 The work contents After preparing these works, I connect the experts by e-mail at August 15, 2005. There are nine antecedence criteria put forward in the questionnaire to seek for confirmation from the experts. At the same time, these experts are asked to provide more factors considered in selecting pricing-decision approach (Appendix 4). The nine criteria are listed as follows (to describe expediently, the engineering works/goods/service are named ―project‖): ① The definitude degree for the technology standard of the project; ② The standard level for the fabrication process of the project; ③ Complexity degree of the project; ④ The Competitiveness of the price; ⑤ Quality guarantee and the acceptability for the customers; ⑥ Buyer’s market or seller's market; ⑦ Period of the procurement, supplying and service; ⑧ Audit process by the government or the directorate; ⑨ Flexibility to changes The experts are demanded to return the responses in two weeks. During September 3rd September 6th, the responses are provided by e-mail also. In these letters, the experts confirm these criteria and prompt other factors such as, project size, risk management for both sides, relationship between the bidders and the local government, economic kinds for the bidders, etc. which are collected in the Table 5.3. 5.3.1.2 The work evaluation 1) Some factors are relative with each other. The project size determines the period of the procurement, supplying and service. The large and complex project procurement requests the accuracy for providing on time and in time. The risk management measures are related with the complexity of the project. The audit process is stricter in the large or complex project procurement than in routine procurement. 2) There is some relative independence between the factors or there is not always directive relevancy between the factors. For example, the risk management is not relative with audit process directly. Supplying experience is not relative to the social reputation for both sides. 3) The factors provided by the experts are from the macroscopical visual field mostly that are different with the factors provided at first in the questionnaire. The foregone nine factors are of the project’s characteristics themselves while the complementary factors are from the effective conditions which affect the pricing decision-making indirectly. 4) The factors are multi-selection for the characteristics described in 1) and 2). The discrete state reflects the inbeing of the things.
Serial number 1 2 3 Selection criterion The definitude degree for the technology standard of the project The standard level for the fabrication process of the project Complexity degree of the project Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU Code of the experts 1 2 3 4 5 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 6 √ 7 8 √ √ 9 √ 10 √ Frequency of the criterion 70% 60%

√ 40% – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 69 -

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

The Competitiveness of the price Quality guarantee and the acceptability for the customers Buyer's market or seller's market Period of the procurement, supplying and service Audit process by the government or the directorate Flexibility to changes Project size Contract types Risk attitude for both sides Relationship between the provider and the local government or trade institutions Procurement experience for both sides Social reputation degree and trust grade Peer relationships Economic attribute for both sides Service level after sale

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √



√ √ √

√ √ √

√ √ √

√ √ √



√ √ √

80% 50% 60% 30% 30%

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √

60% 10% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10%

√ √ √ √

√ √

Table 5.3 The evaluation factors and the frequencies for each factor 5.3.1.3 The statistical result There are six items with ratio of recognition by the experts for more than 50% (including 50%), that’s, 1), 2), 4), 5), 6), 9). There are seven items with ratio of recognition by the experts from 10% to 50% (not including 10% and 50%), that’s, 3), 7), 8), 11), 12), 13), 14). There are five items with ratio of recognition by the experts for less than 10%, that’s, 10), 15), 16), 17), 18). 5.3.2 The second round: refining the selection criteria 5.3.2.1 The work contents In this step the experts are requested to score the 18 criteria singly. According to ( , ), there are many methods for the statistic scoring. On qualitative description, the simple method is to evaluate the criteria into three categories: 1. very important effect on the selection; 2. relative and litmusless for the selection; 3.less important effect on the selection. The criteria with values of 1 or 2 are to be objects into the next analyses. The ten experts evaluate these criteria based on the understanding themselves separately. The aim of this work is to make the experts to reconsider the criteria selected more impersonal and more comprehensive to reduce the subjective oversights. At the same time, considering that the interviewees are from various fields in estate procurement, the experts are sorted into practitioners and the third parts. The former means those with direct benefits on the procurement, while the latter means those with no direct benefits on the procurement but inspects the procurement process and results from onlooking or research view points for the rationality and veracity of the model, such as, the local government or the majordomo. 5.3.2.2 The work evaluation The return time is marked in the second questionnaire—September 18th. During the period there are three experts asking some doubts on evaluation rules by phone. This step is very important for next quantitative analyses. So the selection criteria are related to the corresponding questions (Appendix 5).
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 70 -

Ten experts return the answers on September 18th—24th by e-mail. In China Mainland, the 60% is a usual numerical value to judge a thing whether eligible or not. So, the one with recognition frequency for 60% and above is taken to be the study object. The importance evaluation results are listed in Table 5.4 and the frequency distributions are listed in Table 5.5.
Serial number Criteria developers 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 Codes of the experts contractors provid Operaer tore 4 5 6 7 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 styli -sty 8 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 go. 9 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 major domo 10 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.Ratio of recognition ≥50% 2.Ratio of recognition from 10% to 50%

13 14 15 16 17 18

1.1 The definitude degree for the technology standard of the project 1.2 The standard level for the fabrication process of the project 1.3 The Competitiveness of the price 1.4 Quality guarantee and the acceptability for the customers 1.5 Buyer's market or seller's market 1.6 Flexibility to changes 2.1 Complexity degree of the project 2.2 Period of the procurement, supplying and service 2.3 Audit process by the government or the directorate 2.4 Contract types 2.5 Risk attitude for both sides 2.6 Relationship between the provider and the local government or trade institutions 2.7 Procurement experience for both sides 3.1 Project size 3.2 Social reputation degree and trust grade 3.3 Peer relationships 3.4 Economic attribute for both sides 3.5 Service level after sale

2 3 2 3 3 3

2 3 2 2 2 3

2 3 3 3 3 3

1 3 3 2 3 3

2 2 2 3 1 2

2 3 2 3 3 1

2 3 2 3 2 3

3 2 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 2 2 3 2

Table 5.4 The importance evaluation for the criteria
Serial number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Criteria Total ratio of 1 and 2 90% 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 90% Number of the experts selecting 1 7 6 9 2 7 4 1 Hereinto Number of the experts selecting 2 2 4 1 7 2 4 8 Number of the experts selecting 3 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 71 -

3.Ratio of recognition <10%

1.1 The definitude degree for the technology standard of the project 1.2 The standard level for the fabrication process of the project 1.3 The Competitiveness of the price 1.4 Quality guarantee and the acceptability for the customers 1.5 Buyer's market or seller's market 1.6 Flexibility to changes 2.1 Complexity degree of the project

Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

2.2 Period of the procurement, supplying and service 2.3 Audit process by the government or the directorate 2.4 Contract types 2.5 Risk attitude for both sides 2.6 Relationship between the provider and the local government or trade institutions 2.7 Procurement experience for both sides 3.1 Project size 3.2 Social reputation degree and trust grade 3.3 Peer relationships 3.4 Economic attribute for both sides 3.5 Service level after sale

80% 70% 80% 100% 60% 70% 20% 60% 30% 30% 30%

1 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 1

7 6 7 7 4 6 2 6 3 2 2

2 3 2 0 4 3 8 4 7 7 7

Table 5.5 The frequency distributions of the evaluations 5.3.2.3 Analysis From Table 5.5, there are fourteen criteria with ratio of recognition more than 60% (including 60%). The effects of the criteria on the pricing decision models are analyzed as follows. 1) The definitude degree for the technology standard of the project The technology standard is the basic factor for implementing the procurement action. It is hard to compare the ratio of capability/price or to judge the capability level without the technology guide lines ascertained at the beginning of procurement plans (Clough,1986) for the product and engineering work procurement. While to the operation service, for example, the fundamental establishment lease, the business fields are about the framed service stipulation or the commensal cooperation relationship. The service standard lies on the negotiation between the developer and the provider. So, the service standard affects the service level less important than the technology standard affects the ratio of capability/price for the product or work procurement. Usually, the latter one plight the service standards based on the statute and prescript in Beijing, or based on the cooperation constitution. 2) The standard level for the fabrication process of the project According to Chen (2003), the more the technology standards and the specifications of products are uniform, the more the bigger scale-benefit is gained. The cost of products with same size and manufacturing technique is lower than the summation for the single product. To volume-produce is to reduce the costs, which is true in cost accounting. It is called ―scale-economical‖ theory in management. 3) The Competitiveness of the price Without question, all purchasers expect to gain the project results with lowest costs, or, pay for the most competitive price. The bargainers hope to achieve the business opportunities at a competitive price. It is the basic rule for the resource allocation in market economy condition. But it is rigid for the cost of project procurement especially the engineering work procurement. At a certain extent, the advertisement ―perfect goods, low price‖ is a lie. To the government, especially on the public investments, the cost request is litmus less. The government procurement performs ―all wool and a yard wide‖. 4) Quality guarantee and the acceptability for the customers To the design/consultation companies, the works and goods with high technology level are of artworks which demand the stylists to consider the acceptability of the works for the customers.
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 72 -

It is true for the developer, supplier and other stakeholders. If they force their personal preferences on the project while ignoring the susceptibility from the customers, the final result is that the all inputs, procurement, manufacture and time are ineffectual. 5) Buyer's market or seller's market The market condition affects the formation of price mechanism. In Beijing estate market, the land is at the seller's market. The government requires to average by registration, bidding and public sale, so the purchasers have to pay for high price to achieve the lands. The basic manufacture materials are at the buy’s market which is almost free competition in the whole country, even in Beijing. Then we can gain the corresponding projects through technology comparison and price comparison. 6) Flexibility to changes As described in 1) and 2), if the project contents are described clearly and keeps steady, the purchaser can gain the project by qualifying the technology level/standard and then comparing the price. If the project contents are variable in certain ranges, then they can achieve the project by negotiation and/or quantitative prescriptions (Clough, 1986). The case of BJFL bidding project belongs to the latter type. 7) Complexity degree of the project According to Sun et al (2005), on the project procurement with complex technology, we should balance the relation between the integrality of the technology plan or service contents—that’s, the price signification, and price itself. When evaluating the technology proposal and the business proposal, the committee should inspect each bidding-response carefully and check the price bill to make the price and the plan inosculated. But there are always unpredictable factors in the technology plan, so the price is not perfect and doesn’t cover any conditions. FIDIC contract puts apart the unpredictable conditions to negotiate. The cost plus contract also aims to these project procurements (Clough, 1986; Tian, 2002). 8) Period of the procurement, supplying and service If the period is relatively long, the purchaser should consider the risk of after service. If it is absent for some materials in the period suddenly, the project might pause and brings losses for the purchaser. 9) Audit process by the government or the directorate On public funded projects, the purchaser should consider the audit from the government when selecting whichever pricing model, whichever contract model and bidding model. If the procurement operation infracts the restrictions about open, justice and impartiality, the government might intervene to censor whether there is corruption (Ma, 2002). In the same way, in private or joint venture companies, the procurement expenditure is also censored based on the directorate constitutions. 10) Contract types Different contract types mean to the different price significance. The purchaser and the bargainer can reduce the fuzzy space of the price from the individual view point. Different price significance means different pricing strategies. 11) Risk attitude for both sides The risk attitude (risk-averse, risk-acceptable, and neutral) of the party determines his decision-making. To the hazardous purchaser, he would like to pay less for the procurement; while the risk-averse purchaser would rather pay for the project at higher price. Risk decision is actually the opportunity cost.
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 73 -

12) Relationship between the provider and the local government or trade institutions On whichever project procurement, once the price mechanism is affected by the external factors, the market is not completely competitive. For example, the procurement rule is restricted or prescribed by the trade institutions, if the price mechanism is inhibited by the constitution for some trade alliance, for example, the environment evaluation fee for project development is predicted by the Beijing Environment Protection Institution, the service price is steady and hard to drive down. But to the provider, it has to seek for business opportunities for survival, so it should coin their brains by privately rebating. In like manner, the service providers face the similar question, that’s, how to keep good relation with the trade institutions or government. At the same time, it should provide deeper service to the purchaser, for example, keeping good relation with government to help the purchaser to pass the inspection or audit from the government. 13) Procurement experience for both sides The direct demonstration is that, the clerks of bidding organization always judge and select some model on their experience. The procurement experience is always the wealth for the purchasers on selecting pricing-decision model. Usually, the purchaser adopts the lowest price awarding model on the industrial products or standard service, and the integrative negotiation model on landscaping engineering or artworks. 14) Social reputation degree and trust grade On the model of strategic negotiation, an important factor to be considered is the social reputation degree and trust grade for both sides. The general modus operandi for the purchaser is to investigate the authenticity of the information offered by the opposite publicly, evaluate the cooperation experience and censor the trust grade in banking house. If the opposite lies, or with bad trust/reputation condition, he would be washed out. The negotiation is founded on the trust to each other. The social reputation proves the strength of the other side. 5.3.3 The third round: gaining the utility factors 5.3.3.1 The work contents In this round the main work is to ask the ten experts to score the effectual selection criteria gained in round two based on the individual understanding. Referring to the study method applied in studies on contract approaches in Hong Kong by Chan (2003), the effective score field starts from 10 and ends at 110 to avoid the 0 which might be confused and hard to identified for presenting no scores or zero score. The questionnaire is sent out on October 8 and the experts are asked to return their responses before October 31. Up to November 15, after hastening many times through mobile phone, e-mail and fax, there are only responses back by seven experts. The other three experts say that the rules for scoring the criteria are indistinct and also they are very busy. During the period, the author meets an accident and should be the witness on court. After finishing the litigant affairs, the author renewably connects and visits the three experts to go for the scores on these criteria. At last, the last answer is returned on December 7 in earnest. Then I describe the Kendall Concordance Coefficient and the setover α. 5.3.3.2 The work evaluation The score ―10‖ means the most dissentient condition, the ―110‖ means the most assentient condition and the scores between the two extremities are the different degree for recognizing the
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 74 -

selection criteria. The w or α is the evaluation method or measurement for the calculation process. The scores from experts are collected in Table 5.7
Serial number Criteria Average utility factors[a1+a2+…+a10]/10 Lowest price Integrative Strategic awarding model assessing model negotiation model (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 95.5 93.0 87.7 72.3 78.0 83.7 62.5 57.0 71.9 93.5 97.5 86.5 90.0 67.0 85.5 91.5 73.5 75.5 65.3 65.5 95.0 94.0 83.6 87.5 70.0 84.0 88.6 70.0 70.0 66.0 70.0 88.2 85.0 69.0 65.5 58.5 76.0 56.5 75.5 55.5 60.5 98.5 80.2 86.6 91.0 88.5 89.5 88.5 70.8 78.5 78.5 88.5 60.0 80.0 85.0 85.0 92.5 98.0 95.1 82.5 82.0 88.6 93.5 50.0 64.0 84.6 68.0 96.6 78.5 75.0 85.7 79.0 68.5 60.5 92.5 59.2 82.7 90.5 66.5 78.0 72.5 53.5 85.5 68.5 80.5 55.5 61.5 74.5 91.0 80.0 60.5 58.5 55.0 80.5 75.5 85.5 78.5 67.3 80.1 90.0 72.5 88.6 80.4 50.5 95.5 87.5 86.5 30.0 w α

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14

1) The definitude degree for the technology standard of the project 2) The standardization level for the fabrication process of the project 3) The competitiveness of the price 4) Quality guarantee and the acceptability for the customers 5) Buyer's market or seller's market 6) Flexibility to changes 7) Complexity degree of the project 8) Period of the procurement, supplying and service 9) Audit process by the government or the directorate 10) Contract types 11) Risk attitude for both sides 12) Relationship between the provider and the local government or trade institutions 13) Procurement experience for both sides 14) Social reputation degree and trust grade

0.631 0.452 0.787 0.439 0.297 0.338 0.218 0.181 0.446 0.207 0.664 0.515

0.003 0.01 0.00 0.001 0.016 0.00 0.088 0.724 0.002 0.090 0.00 0.02

75.5 80.5

70.7 83.5

60.5 75.5

87.5 93.0

88.0 98.5

78.0 78.0

73.0 85.0

68.5 70.5

86.5 96.5

0.408 0.323

0.01 0.08

Table 5.7 The utility factors and the concordance coefficient bill During the process, most experts adopt 5 as the step span. But small quantities of scores from some experts are not divided exactly by 5. In the report, the step span is not restricted. In the sheet, we can find out the 7), 8), and 10) three criteria are contradictious with α > 0.05 that means the evaluation values are seriously discrete with each other. The experts have the completely different opinions on the three criteria, so we follow the mostly experts’ perspectives and don’t consider the three selection criteria in the next analyses, that’s, the three criteria don’t affect the pricing strategies directly. 5.3.3.3 The results and analyses We find the average score distribution is obvious on some type of the three models sometimes while is not close with the sub-models each other in the same model. It is might be caused by the different understandings on the same criterion from different viewpoint. The calculation methods for the w and α are of purely mathematical operation: ∑R2i-(∑Ri)2/N 12*K2*(N3-N) N—the number of the selection criteria, 14.
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 75 -

w=

K—the number of the experts, 10. Ri—the summation of k grades for the ith pricing model. The k≤K, if the ten marks from the experts on one criterion are unequal with each other, we say there is K (=k=10) grades; if there are two or more than two marks equal, then we say that there is k (=K-n) grades. The n means the repetition times for the same marks on the same model. The i is from 1 to N. (1)- (9) are the nine sub-models described in Chapter IV. The data calculation is bald and we take one example for calculation about Ri that is listed in
Serial number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Expert code ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ ∑ Ri R
2 i

Model code (1) 95 98 90 89 99 106 92 96 97 93 955 955 912025 (2) 90 88 95 95 90 91 98 100 90 93 930 655 429025 (3) 88 89 87 86 99 83 94 85 77 89 877 788 620944 (4) 74 73 73 70 70 66 80 80 75 62 723 500 250000 (5) … … … … … … … … … … 780 636 404496 (6) … … … … … … … … … … 837 837 700569 (7) … … … … … … … … … … 625 458 209764 (8) … … … … … … … … … … 570 515 265225 (9) … … … … … … … … … … 719 501 251001



5845 34164025

Table 5.8. Table 5.8 The some calculations about Ri 5.3.4 The forth round: refining the utility factors 5.3.4.1 The work contents In this step the main work is to distribute the average marks obtained in the third round to the experts and ask them to refine the evaluation value referring to the other experts’ marks. It mainly aims to provide the opportunity for the experts to reconsider their evaluation on the selection criteria. The questionnaire and the selection criteria are same with those in the third round. The experts accepted the questionnaire on January 5-10, 2006 in which the experts were asked to return the refined results before January 25. There are five experts tell me that they would not correct their marks and point out that the scoring isn’t affected by unprofessional factors. There are five experts rectify parts of their evaluation values. The result of this step is that the concordance coefficient is improved. 5.3.4.2 Analyses and evaluation The refined evaluation for each selection criterion on each sub-model is collected in Table 5.9.
Serial number Selection criteria In Round three Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU w In Round Percentage for four improvement α In Round three In Round four

– Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 76 -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1) The definitude degree for the technology standard of the project 2) The standardization level for the fabrication process of the project 3) The competitiveness of the price 4) Quality guarantee and the acceptability for the customers 5) Buyer's market or seller's market 6) Flexibility to changes 7) Complexity degree of the project 8) Period of the procurement, supplying and service 9) Audit process by the government or the directorate 10) Contract types 11) Risk attitude for both sides 12) Relationship between the provider and the local government or trade institutions 13) Procurement experience for both sides 14) Social reputation degree and trust grade

0.631 0.452 0.787 0.439 0.297 0.338 0.218 0.181 0.446 0.207 0.664 0.515 0.408 0.323

0.647 0.461 0.795 0.449 0.311 0.340 0.203 0.190 0.483 0.233 0.751 0.626 0.393 0.329

2.5% 2.0% 1% 2.3% 4.7% 0.6% 5.0% 8.3% 12.6% 13.1% 21.6% 1.86%

0.003 0.01 0.00 0.001 0.016 0.00 0.088 0.724 0.002 0.090 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.08

0.003 0.005 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.000 0.055 0.533 0.002 0.06 0.000 0.02 0.01 0.04

Table 5.9 Comparison between the concordance coefficients in Round three and in Round four The condition for α> 0.05 means that there is distinct evaluation discrepancy existing on some criterion under the models, that’s, the experts’ opinions on the selection criteria are conflicting and the opinion divarication is caused for each expert sticking to his own view. The opinion divarication is not right or wrong, but means some criteria are not as important as other criteria with the condition of α<0.05. From the two rounds of responses, we find the concordance level is improved generally except for the 7) and 13) items. The improvement span is from 0.6% to 21.6%. But taking one with another, the experts’ opinions on these criteria are accordant gradually through rectifying their marks referring to the others’. In this round of Delphi Method, the criteria ―complexity of the project‖, ―Period of the procurement, supplying and service‖ and ―contract types‖ are hard to be considered conformably on affecting the selection utility factors. Perhaps the complexity doesn’t consequentially lead to the fuzzy quality standards and specifications (Schexnayder, 2005). Or, complexity is not the key factor on affecting the price definitions. Some experts consider that the procurement period is not the factor affecting the price and not the important restrictions. The period of procurement might leads to the longer-time business performance but at the same time it might leads to the price risk for the market changing. So it is hard to say that the longer/shorter procurement period is good/bad for the project procurement. It is especially true when talking on the masterminding service. The ―contract type‖ is not considered conformably by the experts. I can hardly understand that condition. After consulting with Mr.Wang Bingsong, who is the doctor of the China Tsinghua University with the specialty of ―property economy‖, I believe that on a certain extent, the contract type is the price type. If we definite the contract type such as lump-sum, the procurement price should include the total service from accepting the order for goods or contract to the final delivery. If the maintenance obligation is required in the contract, the bidders should consider the service cost for maintenance. Thus the results can be explained. 5.3.5 The Multi-Attribute Model and its shortage 5.3.5.1 The Multi-Attribute Model

Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU

– Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 77 -

Based on the analysis results in the forth Round Delphi, there are eleven selection criteria that are recognized by the experts. Thus the multi-attribute model in this report can be defined as follows: (1) The definitude degree for the technology standard of the project: is it whether able to describe the quality level, technology specification and applicability of the project clearly or not? (2) The standard level for the fabrication process of the project: based on 1), which grade for the quality? Is it able whether to be manufactured industrially or be custom-built? (3) The competitiveness of the price: to what extent do you think when choosing the supplier by price competition to obtain the competitive price? (4) Quality guarantee and the acceptability for the customers: to what extent does the final user think when deciding to determine the quality? (5) Buyer's market or seller's market: is it the buyer’s market or seller’s market? What’s the procurement approach for the purchaser, public bidding, and negotiation with one opposite? (110—the most advantageous for the buyer; 10—the most advantageous for the seller) (6) Flexibility to changes: what extent and feasibility of changes for the project during the implementing process? Do the changes lead to re-bidding or smoothing the question in the original price? (7) Audit process by the government or the directorate: is it whether the pricing process to be audited during the period and after the event? (8) Risk attitude for both sides: what’s the risk attitude for one or two sides, risk preferable or averse? (110—the most advantageous for the buyer; 10—the most advantageous for the seller) (9) Relationship between the provider and the local government or trade institutions: how to balance the social economic risk and the price? (110—there is no conflict; 10—the conflict leading to failure) (10) Procurement experience for both sides: is there the history experience on the kin procurement? How to refer the experience? (11) Social reputation degree and trust grade: how to implement the qualification censoring? Is there any effect of the social reputation on the procurement? From Table 5.10, the utility factors show the evaluation from experts against each criterion. The maximum value in the same row indicates the most obvious benefit for one model against some criterion. The maximum value in the column indicates the most remarkable one criterion against some model. For example, the industrial standard product procurement approach offers the best competitiveness of price for the utility factor of 97.5 and supports the project procurement with definite technology standard for the mean utility factor of 95.5. The standard service/product procurement approach provides the best benefit for the project with high standardization level for the mean utility factor 95.0. The other description likes this, too.
Serial number Criteria Lowest price awarding model (1) (2) (3) (1) The definitude degree for the technology standard of the project --is it whether able to describe the quality level, technology specification and applicability of the project clearly or not? (2) The standardization level for the fabrication process of the project --based on 1), which grade for the quality? Is it able whether to be manufactured Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU 95.5 93.0 87.7 Utility factors Integrative assessing model (4) (5) (6) 72.3 78.0 83.7 Strategic negotiation model (7) (8) (9) 62.5 57.0 71.9

1

2

93.5

95.0

88.2

80.2

80.0

64.0

59.2

61.5

67.3

– Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 78 -

3

4

5

6

7

8 9

10 11

industrially or be custom-built? (3) The competitiveness of the price --to what extent do you think when choosing the supplier by price competition to obtain the competitive price? (4) Quality guarantee and the acceptability for the customers --to what extent does the final user think when deciding to determine the quality? (5) Buyer's market or seller's market (110-10) --is it the buyer’s market or seller’s market? What’s the procurement approach for the purchaser, public bidding, and negotiation with one opposite? (6) Flexibility to changes --what extent and feasibility of changes for the project during the implementing process? Do the changes lead to re-bidding or smoothing the question in the original price? (7) Audit process by the government or the directorate --is it whether the pricing process to be audited during the period and after the event? (8) Risk attitude for both sides --what’s the risk attitude for one or two sides, risk preferable or averse? (9) Relationship between the provider and the local government or trade institutions --how to balance the social economic risk and the price? (10) Procurement experience for both sides --is there the history experience on the kin procurement? How to refer the experience? (11) Social reputation degree and trust grade --how to implement the qualification censoring? Is there any effect of the social reputation on the procurement?

97.5

94.0

85.0

86.6

85.0

84.6

82.7

74.5

80.1

86.5

83.6

69.0

91.0

85.0

68.0

90.5

91.0

90.0

90.0

87.5

65.5

88.5

92.5

96.6

66.5

80.0

72.5

67.0

70.0

58.5

89.5

98.0

78.5

78.0

60.5

88.6

73.5

70.0

75.5

78.5

82.0

79.0

85.5

80.5

95.5

65.3 65.5

66.0 70.0

60.5 98.5

88.5 60.0

93.5 50.0

60.5 92.5

80.5 55.5

85.5 78.5

86.5 30.0

75.5 80.5

70.7 83.5

60.5 75.5

87.5 93.0

88.0 98.5

78.0 78.0

73.0 85.0

68.5 70.5

86.5 96.5

Table 5.10 The Multi-Attribute Model Legend: sub-model codes of (1)-(9) in Table 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 are listed as follows: (1) Industrial standard product procurement (2)Standard service procurement (3)Restrictive service procurement in incomplete competitive market (4)Decorative construction material and fitment procurement (5)High technology engineering work procurement (6)Special procurement in government-monopolization market (7)Creative consultation service procurement (8)Fundamental establishment management lease (9)Industrial strategic alliance 5.3.5.2 The shortages during the application process of the pricing decision model There are some shortages in the application process for the pricing decision model. It is dicey to select the experts for the purchaser’s view point. When we select the experts to construct and evaluate the selection criteria, we always bethink those famous entrepreneurs, cooperation presidents, governmental officeholders, senior research scholars and some famous consultant based on their social reputation, education backgrounds, even the business cards. Of course, these can indicate their authority and strength. But we not only need the basic information, but also request for the corresponding ability, such as, knowledge fields, discernment, profession, responsibility for independently and seriously analyzing and replying. It is very possible that the
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 79 -

experts wouldn’t like to be visited or their responses are of doing something for the occasion without the conscientious attitudes. From the view of discrete mathematics ( , ), we can hardly eliminate the variance for claptrap responses. At the same time, it is hard to ensure that the experts can reply the questionnaires in/on time without delay, giving up, miscarriage of evaluation, and other conditions. In this report, I push the work by dint of my friend relation—in Mainland, the ―relation‖ between the persons is a delicate but useful thing even on the learned investigation. For example, when I visited the FBUC for the case study, I asked my classmate who worked in the company to introduce me to the leader. Zheng Changli, who was my leader when I worked in BJPR in 2002-2004, was willing to be visited and responsible to reply my questions. Under this condition, also, adding my good luck, the ten experts answer the questionnaires without rejection, put-off and paltering. But some of them are lingering sometimes from the Delphi rounds. Then we face how to apply the model. After obtaining the evaluation criteria and the corresponding utility factors, we can conclude the application method for the research model. 5.4 Application of the pricing-decision models: strategies and tactics At last, the multi-attribute model studied in this report is concluded as follows: 1) The purchaser gives the priority rating of those criteria by scoring from the least important to the most important, for example, defining 1 being the least important level, 5 being the most important level; 2) Based on the utility factors gained above, multiplying the purchaser’s evaluation value of the priority rating for each criterion, summing to the totals, then we obtain the final score for each model. At last we find the preferred model is of the highest total score. The aim of the research model in this report is to provide an approach from the pricing decision (on height of strategy) to the actual application (on level of tactic). Here we take actual project procurement for example. There is a project developed by Beijing Royal Hotel Cooperation for pricing in 2005 with height of 105.45 meters beside the east of Forth Ring. The roof of the Beijing Royal Hotel is of an art-sculpting. The developer wanted for apropos pricing to satisfy not only the quality demands and safety requisition of the national standard on steel structures, but also to meet the graphic arts. There are no detailed shop drawings and the manufacturing approaches on the structure while only the architecture papers with some full-page proofs for setting. The excepted budget is 8 million Yuan RMB for the developer. We should notice that the construction operation in high altitude of the high buildings (more than 80 meters) is demanded by the government to be implemented by the qualified special companies with safety qualification. Further more, the construction operation in night in inner of the Fifth Ring is forbidden. The developer invites a bidding company (PRNB) to perform the pricing work. The bidding company (PRNB) selected the high technology engineering work procurement model as the final selection by D&B approach. I take the case to Du Shaodong, my foregone higher-up when I worked in BJPR for validating the applicability of this research model. Du gave the priority rating and I calculated final totals for the selection criteria. The data are collected in Table 5.11. After ascertain the evaluation model on the example, that’s, the high technology engineering work procurement, we should seek for the detailed bidding method—the accessorial decision methods are applied.
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 80 -

Serial number

Du's priority rating

Criteria

Utility factors Lowest price awarding model (1) U.F. 95.5 score 191 U.F. 93.0 (2) score 186 U.F. 87.7 (3) score 175 U.F. 72.3 (4) score 145 U.F. 78.0 Integrative assessing model (5) score 156 U.F. 83.7 (6) score 167 U.F. 62.5 (7) score 125 U.F. 57.0 Strategic negotiation model (8) score 114 U.F. 71.9 (9) score 144

1

2

3

4 5

6

7 8 9 10 11

(1) The definitude degree for the technology standard of the project--is it whether able to describe the quality level, technology specification and applicability of the project clearly or not? (2) The standardization level for the fabrication process of the project--based on 1), which grade for the quality? Is it able whether to be manufactured industrially or be custom-built? (3) The competitiveness of the price--to what extent do you think when choosing the supplier by price competition to obtain the competitive price? (4) Quality guarantee and the acceptability for the customers--to what extent do the final user think when deciding to determine the quality? (5) Buyer's market or seller's market (110-10)--is it the buyer’s market or seller’s market? What’s the procurement approach for the purchaser, public bidding, and negotiation with one opposite? (6) Flexibility to changes--what extent and feasibility of changes for the project during the implementing process? Do the changes lead to re-bidding or smoothing the question in the original price? (7) Audit process by the government or the directorate --is it whether the pricing process to be audited during the period and after the event? (8) Risk attitude for both sides--what’s the risk attitude for one or two sides, risk preferable or averse? (9) Relationship between the provider and the local government or trade institutions--how to balance the social economic risk and the price? (10) Procurement experience for both sides--is there the history experience on the kin procurement? How to refer the experience? (11) Social reputation degree and trust grade--how to implement the qualification censoring? Is there any effect of the social reputation on the procurement? total score sequence

2

3

93.5

281

95.0

285

88.2

265

80.2

241

80.0

240

64.0

192

59.2

178

61.5

185

67.3

202

4

97.5

390

94.0

376

85.0

340

86.6

346

85.0

340

84.6

338

82.7

331

74.5

298

80.1

320

4 3

86.5 90.0

346 270

83.6 87.5

334 263

69.0 65.5

276 197

91.0 88.5

364 266

85.0 92.5

340 278

68.0 96.6

272 290

90.5 66.5

362 200

91.0 80.0

364 240

90.0 72.5

360 218

3

67.0

201

70.0

210

58.5

176

89.5

269

98.0

294

78.5

236

78.0

234

60.5

182

88.6

266

1 3 4 2 3

73.5 65.3 65.5 75.5 80.5

74 196 262 151 242

70.0 66.0 70.0 70.7 83.5

70 198 280 141 251

75.5 60.5 98.5 60.5 75.5

76 182 394 121 227

78.5 88.5 60.0 87.5 93.0

79 266 240 175 279

82.0 93.5 50.0 88.0 98.5

82 281 200 176 296

79.0 60.5 92.5 78.0 78.0

79 182 370 156 234

85.5 80.5 55.5 73.0 85.0

86 242 222 146 255

80.5 85.5 78.5 68.5 70.5

81 257 314 137 212

95.5 86.5 30.0 86.5 96.5 2447 6

96 260 120 173 290

12 13

2602 3

2594 4

2427 7

2668 2

2682 1

2516 5

2379 9

2382 8 -0-

Studies on three pricing-decision models for Beijing ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU

– Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao

Table 5.11 The example for the research model 5.4.1 Practicability test of the pricing-decision models According to the description in the execute summary, the think-route for this report is from individual to common, and then testing the common through actual case. Referring to Zhang (2004), it is a basic research method. Bell (1999) also pointed out that this research method is scientific and effective in social science studies. I seek for 120 functionaries of the branches or departments of the companies, institutions and other organizations in Beijing property market, in which there are 45 general contractors/suppliers registered in Beijing through website (http://www.beijing.gov.cn/fwdh/qy/gczl/), 55 developers with first-grade development qualification through Beijing Yellow Address List, 15 study institutions including colleges and trade institutes, 5 bureaus or departments of some district governments, to test the research model by rating the selection criteria from February 5 to 15, and demand them to return the answers no later than March 5, 2006. From February 25 to March 10, there are 15 contractors/suppliers, 17 developers, 3 study organizations and 1 government department replying the questionnaire for rating the criteria in the research model. The evaluation results for priority rating of these criteria by the 36 interviewees are collected. It is interesting that there is an exceptional response from a researcher of Beijing Construction Material Study Institution who prompted another question that the second criterion—the quality/service standardization level is repetitive to the first criterion of definition of the quality and technology standard. He pointed out the two criteria are same thing. Then I communicate with him and explain that the second criterion means the manufacturing industrialization level which can be used to judge whether to consider the special qualification restriction; while the first criterion means the definition which can be used to judge whether to consider the preference of subjective evaluation. At last he accepts my explanation and we get understandings with each other. I also express my thanks for his in-depth discussion. 5.4.2 Giving a demonstration: the accessorial decision technique In the case of the tested example before 5.4.1, I asked the PRNB for the application process as the demonstration of the accessorial decision methods to perform the think-route. The accessorial calculation method can be seen as the detailed application after obtaining the pricing-decision model—integrative assessing model. It resolves the question that how to obtain the final decision result for some project procurement by calculating. The six accessorial calculation methods are helpful for the pricing decision models. The calculation methods described in Chapter III are especially usable to seek for the final result after ascertain the pricing decision model—the integrative assessing model. Here we take the coefficient estimation technique as the calculation demonstration. In this case, the PRNB obtained the three most important criteria: contract price, termination and safety degree; three relatively secondary criteria: social reputation level, the construction organization and planning and the experience on the similar projects with successful results through Delphi Method. There are three bidders remained through the qualification censoring.
serial number 1 Factors Contract price Bidder 1 1000 Bidder 2 860 Bidder 3 750 Units Ten thousand Yuan - 82 – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao

Studies on three pricing-decision models for Beijing ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU

2 3 4 5 6

The time limit Safety degree evaluation Evaluation on the experience of the similar projects Social reputation evaluation the construction organization and planning

3.5 0.458 2.6 2.4 3

4.5 0.333 1.96 3.0 6

5 0.385 2.2 2.5 5

Months 0-1 1-3 1-5 1-7

Table 5.12 The application of accessorial calculation method for the integrative assessing method Obviously, when censoring the comparison items simply, we can’t find which bidder is the best one to be selected as the final contractor. Here we take the coefficient estimation technique as the effective calculation method for the integrative assessing model. The principle has been described in Chapter III. Comparing the marks of the six factors each two ones based on priority-diagram method (Chen, 2003), on the assumption that i+j=5, i≠j, then
serial number Comparison i j Price The time limit Safety Reputation Experience Organization and planning Totals Price The time limit 3 1 1 2 2 Safety Reputation Experience Organization and planning 4 3 2 2 3 Totals Weight Remark

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 1 0 2 1

4 4 1 3 3

5 4 4 4 3

3 3 2 1 2

19 16 10 5 14 11 75

0.2533 0.2133 0.1333 0.0667 0.1867 0.1467 1.0000

λ1 λ2 λ3 λ4 λ5 λ6

Table 5.13 The comparison for each two indicators Because the evaluation fields are different, such as Yuan, 0-1, 1-3, 1-5, 1-7, we should make the data unitary as listed in next Table. The formula of unitary-disposal can be described as: 1 i=i Yik= 100 i=ip [99(C-B)/(A-B)]+1 i= other value. Let’s prescribe the value for the bidder with the highest evaluation score is 100, the value for the bidder with the worst evaluation is 1, and supposing: A= max yik, B=min yik, C=yik, Then the unitary results are obtained as follows:
serial number 1 2 3 4 5 6 Evaluation indicators Price The time limit Safety Reputation Experience Organization and planning Bidder 1 100 1 1 1 1 1 Bidder 2 56.44 50.5 100 100 100 100 Bidder 3 100 100 58.816 58.125 17.5 67

Table 5.14 The unitary results for each indicator The third step is to calculate the priority coefficient. The priority coefficient means that the indicator value for one bidder is prior to the indicator value for the other bidder. For example, in the case, the bidder 1 has only one indicator (the first factor) prior to the bidder 2. The weight of the first indicator is 0.2533. Supposing that the Cij means the ith bidder’s priority to the jth bidder, then Cij+Cji=1. Taking C12=0.2533, then C21=1-0.2533=0.7476. The indicator for the bidder 1 prior to the bidder 3 is only the first indicator, and the weight of the first indicator is 0.2533, taking C13=0.2533, then we gain the C31=0.7467.

Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU

– Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 83 -

The indicators for the bidder 1 prior to the bidder 3 are first, third, forth, fifth and sixth indicator, the summary of the weights of the five indicators is 0.7867, taking C23=0.7867, then we obtain the C32=0.2133. We gain the priority coefficients as follows:
serial number 1 2 3 Priority coefficient Bidder 1 Bidder 2 Bidder 3 Bidder 1 0.7467 0.7467 Bidder 2 0.2533 0.2133 Bidder 3 0.2533 0.7867

Table 5.15 The priority coefficients among the three bidders The forth step is to calculate inferiority coefficients. Supposing Dij means the inferiority degree for the ith bidder to the jth bidder, L1 being priority-pole difference, L2 being inferiority-pole difference, then we know: Dij=L2/(L1+L2). The priority indicator of the bidder 1 to the bidder 2 is only one item (the value is 56.44), so the priority-pole difference L1=100-56.44=43.56; the inferiority-pole difference L2=50.5-1=49.5. Then D12=49.5/(43.56+49.5)=0.532, D21=1-0.532=0.486. The inferiority coefficients among the three bidders are calculated and collected as follows:
serial number 1 2 3 Inferiority coefficient Bidder 1 Bidder 2 Bidder 3 Bidder 1 0.468 0.857 Bidder 2 0.532 0.625 Bidder 3 0.143 0.375

Table 5.16 The inferiority coefficients among the three bidders The priority coefficients and the inferiority coefficients reflect the degree of the priority and inferiority condition but don’t reflect the number of the priority or inferiority indicators. So we should consider the priority and inferiority coefficients synthetically. The best degree for the priority coefficient is 1; the best degree for the inferiority coefficient is 0, so we can eliminate the worse bidder step by step through descending the selection standard. For example, supposing the level that priority coefficient > 0.25 and inferiority coefficient <0.2 is the decision standard, we can eliminate the third bidder. Then taking bidder 1 contrasting to bidder 2, the inferiority coefficient is 0.532, so we can eliminate bidder 1 and remain the bidder 2 as the final contractor. There are numerous calculation methods in actual decision practice. The six accessorial calculation methods are the prevailing ones especially to the integrative assessing model. 5.5 Summary The Delphi Method is a useful technique to obtain the selection criteria for the pricing decision model. It works by prompting the rough criteria through mind-storming meeting, investigation and other approaches; evaluating the rough criteria to maintain the recognized ones through the expert scoring; scoring the utility factors for the pricing model; then testing the validity of the research model based on the priority rating of a real example--the rating on the steel structure with art idiosyncrasies. But there are some difficulties on application of Delphi Method. It is hard to ensure the experts are willing to reply based on their deep understanding on the project, and hard to ensure the experts are professional without blind spots in his knowledge fields. When the experts are busy ion their own work, it is harder to ensure they answer the questionnaires seriously and prompt. If the visitor gives relatively compact termination for responses, they might retreat from the investigation. In this report, I mobilize my classmates and other ―relation‖ to gain the sustaining help.
Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU – Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 84 -

Up to now, there is little application for the Delphi Method on selecting pricing model in Beijing estate market. So the report refers to the correlative and indirect procurement methods on common product procurements researched by others. Also, the report prompts the pricing model on expenditures of sale masterminding, advertisement, fundamental-establishment lease and artworks procurement that takes up an important share for the real estate developer. The research model shows the selection criteria for pricing decision of estate procurement as following: ·The definitude degree for the technology standard of the project; ·The standard level for the fabrication process of the project ·The competitiveness of the price ·Quality guarantee and the acceptability for the customers ·Buyer's market or seller's market ·Flexibility to changes ·Audit process by the government or the directorate ·Risk attitude for both sides ·Relationship between the provider and the local government or trade institutions ·Procurement experience for both sides ·Social reputation degree and trust grade They are the core of this report. The accessorial decision methods are useful calculation methods and a simplex technique transaction on data investigated. After obtaining the pricing decision model, the methods are of the corresponding approaches to reach the final copartners. So this report can be said the systematic research from macroscopical thinking-route to the microcosmic implementary technique that makes the research consummate.

Final dissertation ? 2006 BRE Department, HK PolyU

– Distance Learning Module Name: XIAO Tao - 85 -


赞助商链接

Chapter IV Letter

Chapter IV Letter Introduction Personal letters Business letters Letters of ...Philip Canoff 是一位父亲, 上个星期他的儿子 Robert 扭伤了脚踝,Mr. ...

To Understand Buddhism--Chapter IV. The Goal of Bud...

To Understand Buddhism--Chapter IV. The Goal of Buddhism Education_英语学习...Thank you AMITABHA 回向: 愿以此功德 庄严佛净土 上报重恩 下济三途苦 ...

2005学年初三第一学期Chapter IV 测试_图文

2005学年初三第一学期Chapter IV 测试_初三英语_英语_初中教育_教育专区。英语 ...___ 3. ___ 4. ___ 5. ___ 6. ___ V. Listen to the passage ...

物流专业英语课件(新)chapter IV Exercises

物流专业英语课件(新)chapter IV Exercises_管理学_高等教育_教育专区。Chapter ...(C) have (D) provide (4) (A) other (B) that (C) rest (D) all...