Next Article in Journal
Mathematical Analysis of a Discrete System Modeling COVID-19
Previous Article in Journal
A Branch and Bound Algorithm for Counting Independent Sets on Grid Graphs
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Optimization on the Financial Management of Construction Companies with Goal Programming Model †

Department of Physical and Mathematical Science, Faculty of Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar Campus, Jalan Universiti, Bandar Barat, Kampar 31900, Perak, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the 1st International Online Conference on Mathematics and Applications, 1–15 May 2023; Available online: https://iocma2023.sciforum.net/.
Comput. Sci. Math. Forum 2023, 7(1), 29; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/IOCMA2023-14420
Published: 28 April 2023

Abstract

:
Financial management is important for the construction sector, as construction companies contribute to the development of countries. Malaysia encourages the construction sector to develop advanced infrastructure related to transport and housing. Financial management is a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem, since companies have to consider multiple goals in order to make the optimal decision. Therefore, goal programming is proposed in financial management to solve optimization in MCDM problems. According to previous studies, there has been no comprehensive study conducted on optimization and comparison among the construction companies with a goal programming model. Thus, this study aims to propose a goal programming model to optimize and compare the financial management of listed construction companies in Malaysia for benchmarking purposes. Six goals of financial management, namely the total assets, total liabilities, equity, profit, earnings, and optimum management of construction companies are examined in this study. The results of this study show that the goal programming model is able to determine the optimal solution and goal achievement for each construction company. In addition, the model value can be further enhanced according to the optimal solution of the goal programming model. This study provides insights to the listed construction companies in Malaysia to identify the potential improvement based on the benchmarking and optimal solution of the goal programming model.

1. Introduction

Construction companies contribute to the development of countries. However, construction companies face many financial issues, such as delayed payment, contractual issues, the abuse of the Defects Liability Period, and the inability to adopt the Building Information Modelling system to plan their project cashflows [1]. Financial management in the construction industry is very important for developing advanced infrastructure, such as in transportation, housing, and commercial areas, for countries. The accuracy of the forecasting profit from construction projects is low because companies tend to suffer losses due to reworks. If a construction company makes consecutively losses in the management of projects, the company may face bankruptcy [2]. Several studies proposed the development of digital technology tools to support financial planning and decision making by construction companies [3,4,5]. Therefore, financial management is very important for construction companies.
Financial management is a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem, since the companies have to consider multiple goals in order to make the optimal decision. Therefore, goal programming (GP) is proposed in financial management to solve optimization in MCDM problems. GP was started by Charnes et al. [6] and further developed by Charnes and Cooper [7]. In GP, a goal is the objective function with an aspiration level. The goals then become the soft constraints for optimization. Soft constraints are deviational variables that show incremental or decremental values that are used to determine the constraint values. The deviations should be minimized for optimality [8].
GP helps to identify the additional resources required or the reduction of the cost to meet the goal. GP also determines the degree of the achievement of goals with the current inputs. According to previous studies, there has been no comprehensive study conducted on optimization and comparison among construction companies with the goal programming model. Thus, this study aims to propose a goal programming model to optimize and compare the financial management of listed construction companies in Malaysia for benchmarking purposes. The next section explains the data and methodology, which are followed by the results and discussion, and finally, the conclusion.

2. Data and Methodology

This paper studies the financial management of listed construction companies in Malaysia, namely DKLS, TRCS, and HSL, from 2017 to 2021. Table 1 lists the goals of the study.
The financial management goals of the listed construction companies are to maximize the total assets, equity, profit, earnings, and optimum management item, while minimizing the total liabilities. A negative deviation in the total assets, equity, profit, earnings, and optimum management item shows the underachievement of these goals. On the other hand, the companies with a positive deviation in the total liabilities have underachieved this goal because a surplus in the total liabilities increases the business risk caused by financial distress [9].
The following shows the GP formulation [9,10,11,12,13]:
min x = d 1 + d 2 + + d 3 + d 4 + d 5 + d 6
subject to:
Goal I:
m = 1 n h m n k m + d 1 d 1 + = g 1
Goal II:
m = 1 n h m n k m + d 2 d 2 + = g 2
Goal III:
m = 1 n h m n k m + d 3 d 3 + = g 3
Goal IV:
m = 1 n h m n k m + d 4 d 4 + = g 4
Goal V:
m = 1 n h m n k m + d 5 d 5 + = g 5
Goal VI:
m = 1 n h m n k m + d 6 d 6 + = g 6
where
  • x = objective function;
  • d y + = positive deviational value when goal y = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , , 6 ;
  • d y = negative deviational value when goal y = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , , 6 ;
  • h m n = weightage of goal in year m = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , , n ;
  • k m = goal in year m = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , , n ;
  • g y = target value when goal y = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , , 6 .
In this study, the computational work of GP model was performed using LINGO, which is an optimization software [14,15,16,17].

3. Results and Discussion

Table 2 presents the financial data of DKLS, TRCS, and HSL from 2017 to 2021.
From Table 2, the maximum values of total assets (5.6836), equity (4.0711), profit (0.2300), earnings (3.8487), and optimum management item (14.5828) serve as the target values of the respective goals. The target value of total liabilities is the minimum value for DKLS, TRCS, and HSL, which is 0.7812. Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 tabulates the optimal solution for DKLS, TRCS, and HSL.
Based on Table 3, DKLS has achieved the goals for the total assets, equity, profit, earnings, and optimum management items. DKLS has overachieved in terms of total assets, equity, profit, and the optimum management item, with positive deviations of MYR 5.7886, 4.9275, 0.1080, and 12.5503 trillion, respectively. DKLS has underperformed in total liabilities as there is a surplus of MYR 1.6924 trillion. DKLS should reduce its total liabilities from MYR 2.4736 to 0.7812 trillion.
TRCS has achieved the total assets, profit, earnings, and optimum management item goals. TRCS outperformed in terms of total assets (0.6213), earnings (1.7716), and the optimum management item (3.8766). TRCS has not attained the total liabilities and equity goals. TRCS should bring down its total liabilities by MYR 2.3902 trillion from MYR 3.1714 to 0.7812 trillion. TRCS can increase its equity by MYR 0.9375 trillion to reach MYR 4.0711 trillion.
HSL has achieved the total assets, equity, profit, earnings, and optimum management item goals because there is no negative deviation from the target value. HSL has outperformed in terms of the total assets, equity, profit, and optimum management item goals by MYR 0.6434, 0.5523, 0.0813, and 2.2308 trillion, respectively. However, HSL has not reached the goal for total liabilities because there is an excess of MYR 0.9219 trillion. HSL should bring down its total liabilities from MYR 1.7031 to 0.7812 trillion.
Table 6 highlights the summary of the target and model values of DKLS, TRCS, and HSL.
DKLS, TRCS, and HSL have achieved the total assets, profit, earnings, and optimum management item goals because a negative deviation is not present. TRCS has not reached the equity goal because of the value of the negative deviation of MYR 0.9375 trillion. TRCS should have MYR 4.0711 trillion in equity. DKLS, TRCS, and HSL have not attained the total liability goal because there are positive deviations of MYR 1.6924, 2.3902, and 0.9219 trillion, respectively. All the companies should maintain their total liabilities at MYR 0.7812 trillion.
Table 7 shows the comparison of deviations between target values and model values for DKLS, TRCS, and HSL.
Based on Table 7, zero deviations indicate the achievement of the goals. The positive values of deviations signify the underachievement of the goals from the target values. DKLS, TRCS, and HSL have MYR 1.6924, 2.3902, and 0.9219 trillion in excess for total liabilities, respectively. The equity of TRCS is MYR 0.9375 trillion lower than the target value of MYR 4.0711 trillion.

4. Conclusions

The objective of this study is to propose a goal programming model to optimize and compare the financial management of the listed construction companies in Malaysia for benchmarking purposes. DKLS, TRCS, and HSL have achieved the total asset, profit, earnings, and optimum management item goals. TRCS has not reached the equity goal. None of the three companies attained the total liability goal. The construction companies in Malaysia should reduce their reliance on debt financing for better financial stability. This study provides insights to the listed construction companies in Malaysia to identify the potential improvement based on the benchmarking and optimal solution of the GP model. This study can also serve as an early detection of possible financial risk in the construction companies to allow the management to draft relevant strategies for continuous improvement.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.S.L. and W.H.L.; methodology, W.S.L., P.F.L. and W.H.L.; software, P.F.L.; validation, W.S.L., P.F.L. and W.H.L.; formal analysis, W.S.L., P.F.L. and W.H.L.; investigation, W.S.L., P.F.L. and W.H.L.; resources, W.S.L. and W.H.L.; data curation, W.S.L., P.F.L. and W.H.L.; writing—W.S.L., P.F.L. and W.H.L.; writing—W.S.L., P.F.L. and W.H.L.; visualization, W.S.L., P.F.L. and W.H.L.; supervision, W.S.L. and W.H.L.; project administration, W.S.L. and W.H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Elghaish, F.; Pour Rahimian, F.; Hosseini, M.R.; Edwards, D.; Shelbourn, M. Financial Management of Construction Projects: Hyperledger Fabric and Chaincode Solutions. Autom. Constr. 2022, 137, 104185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bilal, M.; Oyedele, L.O.; Kusimo, H.O.; Owolabi, H.A.; Akanbi, L.A.; Ajayi, A.O.; Akinade, O.O.; Davila Delgado, J.M. Investigating Profitability Performance of Construction Projects Using Big Data: A Project Analytics Approach. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 26, 100850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Perera, A.A.D.A.J.; Imriyas, K. An Integrated Construction Project Cost Information System Using MS AccessTM and MS ProjectTM. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2004, 22, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lu, Q.; Won, J.; Cheng, J.C.P. A Financial Decision Making Framework for Construction Projects Based on 5D Building Information Modeling (BIM). Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Elghaish, F.; Abrishami, S. A Centralised Cost Management System: Exploiting EVM and ABC within IPD. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 28, 549–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Ferguson, R.O. Optimal Estimation of Executive Compensation by Linear Programming. Manag. Sci. 1955, 1, 138–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W. Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming. Manag. Sci. 1957, 4, 38–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kaur, J.; Singh, O.; Anand, A.; Agarwal, M. A Goal Programming Approach for Agile-Based Software Development Resource Allocation. Decis. Anal. J. 2023, 6, 100146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alam, T. Modeling and Analyzing a Multi-Objective Financial Planning Model Using Goal Programming. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2022, 5, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Halim, B.A.; Karim, H.A.; Fahami, N.A.; Mahad, N.F.; Nordin, S.K.S.; Hassan, N. Bank Financial Statement Management Using a Goal Programming Model. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 211, 498–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. AlArjani, A.; Alam, T. Lexicographic Goal Programming Model for Bank’s Performance Management. J. Appl. Math. 2021, 2021, e8011578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lam, W.S.; Lam, W.H.; Lee, P.F. Decision Analysis on the Financial Management of Shipping Companies Using Goal Programming Model. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA), Virtual, 7–8 December 2021; pp. 591–595. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lam, W.H.; Lam, W.S.; Lee, P.F. Optimizing the Financial Management of Electronic Companies Using Goal Programming Model. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2021, 2070, 012046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lam, W.S.; Liew, K.F.; Lam, W.H. Investigation on the Efficiency of Financial Companies in Malaysia with Data Envelopment Analysis Model. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 995, 012021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lee, P.F.; Lam, W.S.; Lam, W.H. Evaluation and Improvement of the Efficiency of Logistics Companies with Data Envelopment Analysis Model. Eng. J. 2021, 25, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lam, W.S.; Lam, W.H.; Jaaman, S.H. Portfolio Optimization with a Mean-Absolute Deviation-Entropy Multi-Objective Model. Entropy 2021, 23, 1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lee, P.F.; Lam, W.S.; Lam, W.H. Performance Evaluation of the Efficiency of Logistics Companies with Data Envelopment Analysis Model. Mathematics 2023, 11, 718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Financial management goals of the listed construction companies.
Table 1. Financial management goals of the listed construction companies.
GoalExplanation
IMaximize total assets
IIMinimize total liabilities
IIIMaximize equity
IVMaximize profit
VMaximize earnings
VIMaximize optimum management item
Table 2. Financial data of DKLS, TRCS and HSL (MYR trillion).
Table 2. Financial data of DKLS, TRCS and HSL (MYR trillion).
GoalsDKLSTRCSHSL
Total assets2.84345.30935.6836
Total liabilities0.78123.17161.6126
Equity2.06212.13764.0711
Profit0.04880.11550.2300
Earnings0.99083.84872.9637
Optimum management item6.726414.582814.5610
Table 3. Optimal solution of DKLS (MYR trillion).
Table 3. Optimal solution of DKLS (MYR trillion).
GoalTarget ValueModel Value d i d i + Achievement
Total assets5.683611.47220.00005.7886Achieved
Total liabilities0.78122.47360.00001.6924Not Achieved
Equity4.07118.99860.00004.9275Achieved
Profit0.23000.33800.00000.1080Achieved
Earnings3.84873.84870.00000.0000Achieved
Optimum management item14.582827.13310.000012.5503Achieved
Table 4. Optimal solution of TRCS (MYR trillion).
Table 4. Optimal solution of TRCS (MYR trillion).
GoalTarget ValueModel Value d i d i + Achievement
Total assets5.68366.30490.00000.6213Achieved
Total liabilities0.78123.17140.00002.3902Not Achieved
Equity4.07113.13360.93750.0000Not Achieved
Profit0.23000.23000.00000.0000Achieved
Earnings3.84875.62030.00001.7716Achieved
Optimum management item14.582818.45940.00003.8766Achieved
Table 5. Optimal solution of HSL (MYR trillion).
Table 5. Optimal solution of HSL (MYR trillion).
GoalTarget ValueModel Value d i d i + Achievement
Total assets5.68366.32700.00000.6434Achieved
Total liabilities0.78121.70310.00000.9219Not Achieved
Equity4.07114.62340.00000.5523Achieved
Profit0.23000.31130.00000.0813Achieved
Earnings3.84873.84870.00000.0000Achieved
Optimum management item14.582816.81360.00002.2308Achieved
Table 6. Summary of target and model values (MYR trillion).
Table 6. Summary of target and model values (MYR trillion).
GoalsTarget ValuesModel Values
DKLSTRCSHSL
Total assets5.683611.47226.30496.3270
Total liabilities0.78122.47363.17141.7031
Equity4.07118.99863.13364.6234
Profit0.23000.33800.23000.3113
Earnings3.84873.84875.62033.8487
Optimum management item14.582827.133118.459416.8136
Table 7. Comparison of deviations between target values and model values (MYR trillion).
Table 7. Comparison of deviations between target values and model values (MYR trillion).
GoalsTarget ValuesDeviations
DKLSTRCSHSL
Total assets5.6836000
Total liabilities0.78121.69242.39020.9219
Equity4.071100.93750
Profit0.2300000
Earnings3.8487000
Optimum management item14.5828000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lam, W.S.; Lee, P.F.; Lam, W.H. Optimization on the Financial Management of Construction Companies with Goal Programming Model. Comput. Sci. Math. Forum 2023, 7, 29. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/IOCMA2023-14420

AMA Style

Lam WS, Lee PF, Lam WH. Optimization on the Financial Management of Construction Companies with Goal Programming Model. Computer Sciences & Mathematics Forum. 2023; 7(1):29. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/IOCMA2023-14420

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lam, Weng Siew, Pei Fun Lee, and Weng Hoe Lam. 2023. "Optimization on the Financial Management of Construction Companies with Goal Programming Model" Computer Sciences & Mathematics Forum 7, no. 1: 29. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/IOCMA2023-14420

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop