## 4 Discussion of the Obtained Results  
The research results concerning decisions about which variant solution to choose (Table 3) show that such decision-making situations are evidently dominated by the multi-criteria decision support methods (model II), and this model is particularly preferred in cases of construction projects classified as small and medium-sized ones. This is mostly connected with the character of decisions and specific situations generating numerous assessment criteria. In 25 of the analysed cases, one of the multi-criteria analytical methods was employed. Meanwhile, it could be noticed that the structure of models applied was diverse--the observations show that the eight-step decision support scheme recommended in the literature was employed in 11 cases, while in 8 cases the process was shorter by one stage, hence only seven steps were followed, in contrast to 6 other cases, where the procedure was extended by one stage. The application of the eight-step procedure appeared in construction projects classified as small and medium-sized, while longer procedures appeared in medium-sized projects. Further investigations revealed that the shortening of the procedure in small construction projects affected the final stage. Decision makers skipped the stage of evaluating the effectiveness of the decision they made. They concluded that it was unnecessary in the case of less complicated construction projects. The lengthening of the process in medium-sized construction projects differed in character. In two cases (road construction), the procedure required one more final stage to be added, such as transmitting the feedback in order to correct the decision model adopted at the beginning. In other cases, the stage of input information preparation, intended to help  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **Sub-Criteria** & **Final Weights** & **L1** & **L2** & **L3** & **L4** & **L5** \\ \hline \multirow{9}{*}{A} & A1 & 0.036 & 0.072 & 0.072 & 0.036 & 0.108 & 0.036 \\  & A2 & 0.036 & 0.000 & 0.108 & 0.0  
recognise difficulties in executing a given construction project, was expanded to enable identification of problems. Model III--the [PERSON]'s model, was applied on four occasions in construction projects classified as large ones. In all the cases, it was reduced to ten steps, and the description of the performed analyses explained that the collection of information and data was combined with empirical research into a single stage (stages 2 and 3). Model IV--the [PERSON]'s model, very close to a multi-criteria model, appeared on 4 occasions. In a form lengthened by adding an additional stage it was used in large construction projects, whereas in the form recommended in the literature, i.e., composed of 8 stages, it was employed in medium-sized civil structures. The lengthening of the process consisted of a stage of obtaining feedback in order to correct the process in the case of large and complicated construction projects. Model I proved to be far less useful in a decision-making process in construction projects, as it only appeared in one case. A decision supported by a single-criterion model does not allow the user to analyse complicated construction processes. Table 4 contains the information about the decision-making processes concerning development strategies of construction companies. It shows that other decision support models were applied in this case. Six cases of using model V, 5 cases of using model III, 3 cases of using model II and 1 case of using model IV were observed. Model V was mainly employed when making a decision to broaden the range of services offered. The application of this model entailed market analysis and studies of clients' preferences. In one case, this model was used to plan a change in the company's business profile, and once it served to make a decision to expand the operation area. The adopted model was verified in all but one cases.