Please Comply with the Lean Construction Institute's Usage

Home , Frank Gehry

Please comply with the Lean Construction Institute’s Usage Policies and Attribution Guidelines at http://www.leanconstruction.org/usage.pdf when using this file. Thank you. Lean Construction Institute Provider Number #H561 CBA Evaluation of Design Alternatives with Sustainability Criteria Course Number: 201301311100 Paz Arroyo, University of California, Berkeley Date: January 31, 2013 Credit(s) earned on completion of This course is registered with AIA this course will be reported to AIA CES for continuing professional CES for AIA members. education. As such, it does not Certificates of Completion for both include content that may be AIA members and non-AIA deemed or construed to be an members are available upon approval or endorsement by the request. AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product. ______Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

Copyright Materials This presentation is protected by US and International Copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, display and use of the presentation without written permission of the speaker is prohibited.

Stakeholders in the AEC industry need to select a method for their decision-making process. As Jim Suhr states, “Among the most important of all the decisions the world's people will ever make are their decisions about how to make decisions”. In this presentation we will be focusing on the problem of selecting a sustainable alternative (e.g. selecting materials while considering environmental, social, and economic outputs). From the literature it appears to be assumed that all Multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods are equal or that the differences between them do not matter. Usually it is left to the user to select a MCDM method. This presentation shows that methods matter, and we will compare some of them including Choosing By Advantages (CBA) and Value-Based methods.

Learning Objectives

At the end of the this course, participants will be able to:

1) Explain the importance of the decision-making method. Not all methods are the same.

2) Explain the difference between value-based approaches (e.g. Analytical Hierarchy Process) and Choosing by Advantages decision-making methods.

3) Explain how Choosing by Advantages can be applied to AEC industry decisions, such as selecting materials.

4) Provide an example that considers sustainability factors in decision- making and discuss the importance of these considerations.

Elections

Who will be the architect of the year?

Rem Koolhaas Norman Foster Frank Gehry

Image Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rem_Koolhaas, http://www.fosterandpartners.com/team/senior-partners/norman-foster/, http://www.archdaily.com/tag/frank-gehry/ (© Melissa Majchrzak)

Elections by Relative Majority

• Results:

Preference 1 Preference 2 Preference 3 # Votes (90 Total) Koolhaas Gehry Foster 31 Foster Gehry Koolhaas 30 59 Gehry Foster Koolhaas 29 Winner! But Wait!.. Foster and Gehry are preferred to Koolhaas by a majority of voters!

Koolhaas OK, lets do 2nd round between the 2 finalist! Elections by Second Round

• Results:

Preference 1 Preference 2 Preference 3 # Votes (90 Total) Koolhaas Gehry Foster 31 Foster Gehry Koolhaas 30 60 59 Gehry Foster Koolhaas 29 Winner! But Wait!.. Gehry was preferred over Foster by Majority of voters!

We will weigh the votes! Foster Elections by Weighted Scores

• Results: 3 2 1 Preference 1 Preference 2 Preference 3 # Votes (90 Total) Koolhaas Gehry Foster 31 Foster Gehry Koolhaas 30 Gehry Foster Koolhaas 29 Winner! Weighted Sum Right? Koolhaas 3*31 + 1*59 152 Foster 3*30 + 2*29 +31 179

Gehry 3*29 + 2*61 209 Gehry Methods Matter

Methods Decisions Actions Outcomes

If outcomes matter, then decision-making methods matter (Suhr, J. (1999) The Choosing By Advantages Decisionmaking System. Quorum, Westport, CT )

Different Methods can provide different outcomes! 11

Decisions Impact on Sustainability

72% of total US electricity 13% of total US potable Alternatives About 8% of world energy water. Buildings

• Material Selection • Building system selection 40% of total US landfill • Building layout material • Urban Planning Decisions • Etc.

Images sources: http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/10/27/sfs-transamerica-pyramid-achieves-green-building-milestone (buildings), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coal_power_plant_Datteln_2_Crop1.png (coal power plant), http://occupycorporatism.com/the-groundwater-footprint-over-population-threatens-water-resources/ (water), http://swamplot.com/tag/landfills/ (landfill) 12 The Triple Bottom Line

Social Needs

Human- Uneconomical centered green design design Sustainable systems Environmental/ Economic Sustainability Needs (Profit) Unadopted Needs green systems

(Oehlberg, L. A., Agogino, A. M., Beckman, S.M. (2009) “Framing Sustainability In Human-Centered Product Design”. Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, IDETC/CIE 2009, San Diego, California, U.S.A. Opportunities

(McKinsey. (2008) “Resource Revolution: Meeting the world’s energy, materials, food, and water needs” McKinsey Sustainability & Resource Productivity Practice. ) Decisions Considering Sustainability

• We Need to: • Consider Multiple criteria (Social, Economic and Environmental)

• Do a rigorous analysis to understand the decision outcomes • Reliable Data • Context specific

• Provide a rationale and document our decisions to learn and then improve.

• Select a method for making decisions 15

My Research Questions

What Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Methods are available in the Literature?

What decision-making methods are used in practice?

What characteristics make a method viable? What characteristics disqualify a method?

For those viable methods, what methods are more suitable than others for different applications?

Li & Zou 2011 Cavallaro 2009 Koga 2008 Management Li et. Al 2011 Marzouk 2010 Lee et al. 2010 Tools De Azevedo 2012 Zhou et al. 2009 Shapira & Simcha 2008 Rogers & Bruen 2012 Etc. Etc.

Aguado et al. 2012 Duckstein et al. 1989 Parrish et al. 2007, Building Bakhoum & Brown 2012 Balali et al. 2012 2009 System Ali et al. 2007 Etc. Nguyen et al. 2009 Selection Zayed & Halpin 2003 Grant 2007, 2009 Etc.

Akadiri et al. 2013 Tam, Tong & Wong 2004 Thanopoulos 2012 Material / Shapira & Goldenberg Etc. Arroyo et al. 2012 Equipment 2003, 2006 Selection Etc.

# of papers Value-based, AHP Outranking (52) CBA (0) ASCE database: (768) CASE STUDY 1

Comparing AHP and CBA For selecting insulation material 18

Deciding What Insulation to Use

Decision:

• Insulation type for interior wall system in a 6 story hospital project in northern California

Stakeholders: Cotton Fiberglass • Owner • Architect • Contractor • Drywall Sub 19

Methodology

• Here we compare and contrast two multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods:

Value-based methods (e.g. Choosing By AHP) Advantages (CBA)

• Hypothesis: CBA is superior to value-based approaches for selecting a sustainable alternative in the AEC Industry 20

CBA Definitions

• Two or more people, things, or plans from which Alternative: one is to be chosen

Factor: • Element, part, or component of a decision

• Any standard in which a judgment is based – must Criterion: or want

Attribute: • Characteristic, quantity, or quality of one alternative

• The beneficial difference between Attributes of two Advantage: alternatives (one of which is the least preferred) 21

Data From GC, Sub and Suppliers

# Factor Cotton Fiberglass 1 Recycled contents 85% 20%

Chemical irritants No, it is treated with non-toxic borates to Yes, fibers may cause skin, eye and upper 2 (Heath issues) resist fire, mold and vermin. respiratory tract irritation. 3 Density Heavy (2.5 lb/ft3) Light (0.5 lb/ft3) Sound privacy 4 Depends on the wall assembly. Depends on the wall assembly. (STC Ratings) R-19 (5-1/2" thickness) R-19 (6-1/4" thickness) 5 Insulation capacity (other thicknesses can be used) (other thicknesses can be used)

6 Recyclability 100% 40% Can only be used in areas rated 1-hour or 7 Fireproof Can be used in any area of the building. less. 8 Handling material Wear mask, no gloves. Hard to cut. Wear mask and gloves. Easy to cut.

9 Installation 200 ft2/day per person. 2,500-3,000 ft2/day per person.

First Cost 1 Material $1.20/ft2 $0.47/ft2 More trips for the same ft2 Available only 2 Transportation Available locally. from Arizona. 22

LEED incentives (USGBC 2009)

• Contributes to a higher percentage of diverted waste Ease of recycling based on the weight or volume of the total waste. waste materials • One point for 50% and two points for 75% diverted waste.

• Sum of the postconsumer recycled content plus half of the Highest recycle pre-consumer recycled content. • One point if 10% and two points if 20% of the cost of content materials is recycled.

• Building materials that have been extracted, harvested, or recovered, as well as manufactured, within 500 miles of Use of regional the project site. materials • One point for 10% and two points for 20 % of recycled content based on the cost of materials.

Use rapidly • Materials that are planted and harvested within a 10-year or shorter cycle. renewable • One point at least 2.5% of the total value of all building materials. materials should be rapidly renewable materials. 23

Analytical Hierarchy Process Steps

3. Synthesize these 1. Model the problem 2. Establish priorities judgments to yield a as a hierarchy. among factors. set of overall priorities for the hierarchy.

5. Come to a final 4. Check the decision based on the consistency of results of this judgments. process. AHP Step 1

1. Model the problem as a hierarchy. 25

AHP Step 2 2. Establish priorities among factors.

Factors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Recycled content 1 1 3 1/3 1/5 1 1 1/5 3 1 Chemical irritants content 2 1/3 1 3 3 1 1 1/5 5 3 Density 3 3 1/3 1 1/5 1/3 1/5 1/9 1/3 1/7 Sound privacy 4 5 1/3 5 1 1 3 1/5 5 3 Insulation capacity 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 1/3 3 3 Recyclability after used 6 1 1 5 1/3 1 1 1/5 3 1 Fireproof 7 5 5 9 5 3 5 1 5 5 Handling material 8 1/3 1/5 3 1/5 1/3 1/3 1/5 1 1/3 Installation 9 3 1/3 7 1/3 1/3 1 1/5 3 1

1—equal preference, 3—weak preference, 5—strong preference, 7— demonstrated preference, and 9—absolute preference. 26

AHP Step 3 - 5

3. Synthesize these judgments to yield a set of overall priorities for the hierarchy 4. Check the consistency of judgments. 5. Come to a final decision based on the results of this process

Normalized values for attributes of alternatives, assuming linear preference.

content Density material capacity Handling Fireproof Recycled Chemical Insulation after usedafter Installation FinalScore Recyclability Soundprivacy irritantscontent Factors weight 8% 12% 4% 14% 10% 8% 32% 3% 9% Cotton 0.81 0.88 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.71 0.25 0.17 0.07 0.44 Fiberglass 0.19 0.13 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.29 0.75 0.83 0.93 0.56

Fiberglass is preferred to cotton by 0.56/0.44 Assumptions Behind AHP

• Factors can be weighted • We can prefer a factor (high order abstraction concept) over another. • Identify factors for evaluation independent of alternatives. • Attributes can be weighted • Assuming linear preferences • Factors are Independent, so the conversion rates between factors (for integrating the utility function) are constant. • Cost can be a Factor 28

Choosing By Advantages Steps

3. Define must/ 1. Identify 2. Define factors want have criteria alternatives for each factor

4. Summarize the 5. Decide the 6. Decide the attributes of each advantages of importance of alternative each alternative each advantage

7. Evaluate cost data 29 1. Identify alternatives 2. Define factors CBA Steps 1-3 3. Define must/want have criteria

FACTOR (BELOW IN CAPS) Alternative 1: Cotton Imp. Alternative 2: Fiberglass Imp. 1. RECYCLED CONTENT Criterion: higher is better 2. CHEMICAL IRRITANTS Criterion: does not have is preferred 3. DENSITY Criterion: lower is better 4. SOUND PRIVACY (STC) Criterion: higher is better 5.INSULATION CAPACITY Criterion: higher is better 6. RECYCLABILITY Criterion: higher is better 7. FIREPROOFING Criterion: higher hour rating is better

8. MATERIAL HANDLING Criterion: easier is better 9. INSTALLATION Criterion: faster is better Total Importance 30

4. Summarize the attributes of each CBA Step 4 alternative

FACTOR (BELOW IN CAPS) Alternative 1: Cotton Imp. Alternative 2: Fiberglass Imp. 1. RECYCLED CONTENT Att: 85% Att.: 20% Criterion: higher is better 2. CHEMICAL IRRITANTS Att.: Does not have irritants Att.: Has irritants Criterion: does not have is preferred 3. DENSITY Att.: Heavy (2.5 lb./cf.) Att.: Light (0.5 lb./cf.) Criterion: lower is better 4. SOUND PRIVACY (STC) Att.: Acceptable Att.: Acceptable Criterion: higher is better 5.INSULATION CAPACITY Att: R-19 Att: R-19 Criterion: higher is better 6. RECYCLABILITY Att.: 100% Att.: 40% Criterion: higher is better 7. FIREPROOFING Att.: Less than one hour Att.: More than 1 hour Criterion: higher hour rating is better Att.: Wear mask, no gloves. Very hard Att.: Wear mask and gloves. Easy to 8. MATERIAL HANDLING to cut cut Criterion: easier is better 9. INSTALLATION Att.: 200 sf./day pp. Att.: 2500-3000 sf./day pp. Criterion: faster is better Total Importance 31

5. Decide the advantages of each CBA Step 5 alternative

FACTOR (BELOW IN CAPS) Alternative 1: Cotton Imp. Alternative 2: Fiberglass Imp. 1. RECYCLED CONTENT Att: 85% Att.: 20% Criterion: higher is better Adv.: 65% more recycled content Adv.: 2. CHEMICAL IRRITANTS Att.: Does not have irritants Att.: Has irritants Adv.: Does not have irritants vs. Criterion: does not have is preferred Adv.: has 3. DENSITY Att.: Heavy (2.5 lb./cf.) Att.: Light (0.5 lb./cf.) Criterion: lower is better Adv.: Adv.: 2 lb./sf. lighter 4. SOUND PRIVACY (STC) Att.: Acceptable Att.: Acceptable Criterion: higher is better Adv.: - Adv.: - 5.INSULATION CAPACITY Att: R-19 Att: R-19 Criterion: higher is better Adv.: - Adv.: - 6. RECYCLABILITY Att.: 100% Att.: 40% Criterion: higher is better Adv.: 60% more recyclability Adv.: 7. FIREPROOFING Att.: Less than one hour Att.: More than 1 hour Adv.: Slightly less flammable than Criterion: higher hour rating is better Adv.: cotton Att.: Wear mask, no gloves. Very hard Att.: Wear mask and gloves. Easy to 8. MATERIAL HANDLING to cut cut Criterion: easier is better Adv.: Adv.: Easier to cut 9. INSTALLATION Att.: 200 sf./day pp. Att.: 2500-3000 sf./day pp. Criterion: faster is better Adv.: Adv.: 2300-2800 sf./day/pp. faster. Total Importance 32

6. Decide the importance of each CBA Step 6 advantage

FACTOR (BELOW IN CAPS) Alternative 1: Cotton Imp. Alternative 2: Fiberglass Imp. 1. RECYCLED CONTENT Att: 85% Att.: 20% Criterion: higher is better Adv.: 65% more recycled content 40 Adv.: 2. CHEMICAL IRRITANTS Att.: Does not have irritants Att.: Has irritants Adv.: Does not have irritants vs. Criterion: does not have is preferred 60 Adv.: has 3. DENSITY Att.: Heavy (2.5 lb./cf.) Att.: Light (0.5 lb./cf.) Criterion: lower is better Adv.: Adv.: 2 lb./sf. lighter 0 4. SOUND PRIVACY (STC) Att.: Acceptable Att.: Acceptable Criterion: higher is better Adv.: - Adv.: - 5.INSULATION CAPACITY Att: R-19 Att: R-19 Criterion: higher is better Adv.: - Adv.: - 6. RECYCLABILITY Att.: 100% Att.: 40% Criterion: higher is better Adv.: 60% more recyclability 50 Adv.: 7. FIREPROOFING Att.: Less than one hour Att.: More than 1 hour Adv.: Slightly less flammable than Criterion: higher hour rating is better Adv.: 10 cotton Att.: Wear mask, no gloves. Very hard Att.: Wear mask and gloves. Easy to 8. MATERIAL HANDLING to cut cut Criterion: easier is better Adv.: Adv.: Easier to cut 0 9. INSTALLATION Att.: 200 sf./day pp. Att.: 2500-3000 sf./day pp. Criterion: faster is better Adv.: Adv.: 2300-2800 sf./day/pp. faster. 100 Total Importance 150 110 Cotton is preferred to fiberglass cotton by 150/110 What Happen in AHP if we take out factors that are not relevant?

How contribution of factors change if we take out irrelevant factors. Factor 4 (sound privacy) and 5 (insulation capacity). What Happen in AHP if we overweight factors that are not relevant? Changes of scale in Attributes

Example changes in the % of recycle content 36

Conclusions

• Subjectivity • The decision making process should highlight the difference between the alternatives first (which is an objective tasks) and then decide what advantages (positive differences) are more important (which is a subjective task). • AHP asks stakeholders to make explicit what factors are more important (subjective task first), without considering the relevant differences between alternatives (objective task). • Collaboration • CBA postpones value judgement and minimizes conflict among stakeholders. • AHP may not focus to the same extent on the importance of the advantages between attributes of alternatives; therefore, stakeholders may have difficulty collaborating and resolving conflicting interests, which is essential in sustainable building design. • Transparency • When using AHP, it is hard to understand why the chosen alternative was selected, due to the fact that several assumptions are made in the decision-making process (e.g., AHP assumes linear trade-offs ). • CBA shows objective information and value judgements, making clear what were the trade-offs. CASE STUDY 2

Using CBA For Selecting Ceiling Tiles for a Global Project 38

Deciding Ceiling Tile Products

Decision:

• Ceiling tiles for a renovation project for a global client Optima Ultima • Fiberglass • Mineral fiber Stakeholders:

• Owner • Architect • Interior Designer • Acoustic Specialist Optima PB Optra • Fiberglass with plant • Biosoluble glass wool based binder 39

Choosing By Advantages Steps

3. Define must/ 1. Identify 2. Define factors want have criteria alternatives for each factor

4. Summarize the 5. Decide the 6. Decide the attributes of each advantages of importance of alternative each alternative each advantage

7. Evaluate cost data 40

CBA tips

• Do not choose by advantages and disadvantages or you are probably double counting.

• It is not about what factor is more important. It is about what factor will have important differences between the attributes of the alternatives.

• Decision making is subjective! Yes, but do the objective part first (What are the advantages of the alternatives), and then do the subjective part (How do I value those advantages). It really makes life easier! 41 1. Alternatives: Ceiling Tiles from Armstrong

Optima Ultima Optima PB Optra • Fiberglass • Mineral fiber • Fiberglass with • Biosoluble glass plant based wool • Manufactured in: • Manufactured in: binder • Hilliard, OH • Pensacola, FL. • Manufactured in: • Marietta, PA. • Manufactured in: • Shanghai, • Munster, • Hilliard, OH China. Germany. • Shanghai, China. 42

Ceiling Tiles Data

Optima (Fiberglass) Ultima (Mineral Fiber) Acoustics NRC (Higher is better) 0.9 0.7 Fire resistance (More is better) Class A Class A Light reflectance (More is better) 0.9 0.9 Humidity resistance (More is better) HumiGuard Plus HumiGuard Plus Anti-microbial (More is better) Inherent BioBlock+ Durability (More is better) Scratch and Impact resistance Scratch and Impact resistance Maintainability (Less is better) Washable and soil resistance Washable and soil resistance Weight (Less is better) 0.55 (lbs/sqft) 1.14 (lbs/sqft) Insulation Value (More is better) R Factor-BTU: 4.0 BTU R Factor-BTU: 2.2 BTU VOC Formaldehyde (Less is better) Low Formaldehyde - less than 13.5 ppb Free of Formaldehyde Warranty (More is better) 30 Year Guarantee 30 Year Guarantee Primary Energy (Less is better) 10.3 (MJ per sf.) 10.3 (MJ per sf.) Global Warming Potential (Less is better) 0.59 (kgCO2 equivalent per sf.) 0.8 (kgCO2 equivalent per sf.) Ozone Depletion (Less is better) 2.60E-08 (kg CFC- 11 equivalent per sf.) 2.20E-08 (kg CFC- 11 equivalent per sf.) Acidification Potential (Less is better) 0.214 (H+ moles equivalent per sf.) 0.21 (H+ moles equivalent per sf.) Eutrophication Potential (Less is better) 2.42E-04 (kg N- equivalent per sf.) 4.83E-04 (kg N- equivalent per sf.) Smog Photochemical Oxidant Creation Potential (Less is better) 0.037 (kg O3-Equiv. per sf.) 0.054 (kg O3-Equiv. per sf.) 43

2. Define Factors

Factors • Acoustics NRC • Fire resistance • Light reflectance Relevant Factors • Humidity resistance • Anti-microbial • Acoustics NRC • Durability • Anti-microbial • Maintainability • Weight • Durability • Insulation Value • Weight • VOC Formaldehyde • Warranty • Insulation Value • Primary Energy • VOC Formaldehyde • Global Warming Potential • Ozone Depletion • Warranty • Acidification Potential • Global Warming Potential • Eutrophication Potential • Smog Photochemical Oxidant Creation Potential • ect. 44

3. Define Must/Want Criteria

Factor: • Criterion:

Acoustics NRC (Noise Reduction • Higher NRC value is better, the minimum acceptable is 0.7 for open Coefficient) spaces.

Anti-microbial barrier • More resistant to microbial is better

Durability • More resistant to scratch and impact is better

Weight • Lighter is better

Insulation Value • Higher R-value is better

VOC Formaldehyde • No Formaldehyde is better

Warranty: • More years of guarantee is better

Global Warming Potential: • Less CO2 emissions is better 45

Shipping Distances

More than 7,000 mi 6,000 mi - 7,000 mi 5,000 mi - 6,000 mi 4,000 mi - 5,000 mi 3,000 mi - 4,000 mi Product Location 2,000 mi - 3,000 mi 1,000 mi - 2,000 mi 500 mi - 1,000 mi

SanFrancisco Chicago York New Portland Austin Toronto Dublin London Paris Tokyo Singapore Bangalore Sidney Melbourne L Less than 500 mi Optima Hiliard, OH L L L

Pensacola, FL L Marietta, PA L Ultima Germany, Munster L L Shanghai, China

Optima PB Hiliard, OH L L L

Optra Shanghai, China 46

Transportation Emissions

Co2 per sf. SF NY Tokyo Sidney Dublin •Optima (Fiberglass): 0.08 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.03 •Ultima (Mineral Fiber): 0.16 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.01

•Optima with plant base binder: 0.08 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.03 •Optra (Fiberglass): 0.01 0.04 0.04

Total Kg of CO2 SF NY Tokyo Sidney Dublin •Optima (Fiberglass): 32,664 1,257 4,258 2,367 2,685 •Ultima (Mineral Fiber): 66,261 787 1,474 3,187 1,069

•Optima with plant base binder: 32,664 1,257 4,258 2,367 2,685 •Optra (Fiberglass): - - 621 1,342 3,809

Considering distance, method of transportation, weight of the product and information from EDP emissions 47

4. Summarize the attributes of each alternative

Optima with plant Optima Ultima (Mineral based binder Optra (Fiberglass) (Fiberglass) Fiber) (Fiberglass) Acoustics NRC 0.9 0.7 0.95 0.9 Anti-microbial Inherent BioBlock+ Inherent Inherent No Scratch Scratch resistance Scratch resistance Scratch resistance resistance Durability Impact resistance Impact resistance Impact resistance No Impact resistance

Weight 0.55 (lbs/sqft) 1.14 (lbs/sqft) 0.55 (lbs/sqft) 0.48 (lb/sqft)

Insulation Value R Factor: 4.0 BTU, R Factor: 2.2 BTU R Factor: 4.0 BTU R Factor: 3.0 BTU

Low Formaldehyde - Free of Free of Low Formaldehyde - VOC Formaldehyde less than 13.5 ppb Formaldehyde Formaldehyde less than 13.5 ppb

Warranty 30 Year Guarantee 30 Year Guarantee 30 Year Guarantee 15 Year Guarantee

Global Warming Potential 0.59 0.8 0.59 0.649 (kgCO2eq./sf.) 48

4. Summarize the attributes of each alternative

Weight 0.59 lbs/sqft lighter 1.14 (lbs/sqft) 0.59 lbs/sqft lighter 0.66 lbs/sqft lighter

Insulation Value R Factor: 4.0 BTU, R Factor: 2.2 BTU R Factor: 4.0 BTU R Factor: 3.0 BTU

Low Formaldehyde - Free of Free of Low Formaldehyde - VOC Formaldehyde less than 13.5 ppb Formaldehyde Formaldehyde less than 13.5 ppb

Warranty 30 Year Guarantee 30 Year Guarantee 30 Year Guarantee 15 Year Guarantee

Global Warming Potential 0.59 0.8 0.59 0.65 (kgCO2eq./sf.) 500 miles 49

5. Decide the advantages of each alternative

Optima with plant Optima Ultima (Mineral based binder Optra (Fiberglass) (Fiberglass) Fiber) (Fiberglass) 0.2 Higher noise 0.25 Higher noise 0.2 Higher noise Acoustics NRC resistance resistance resistance Anti-microbial Better Anti-Microbial Better Anti-Microbial Better Anti-Microbial

More resistant to More resistant to More resistant to Durability Scratch and impact Scratch and impact Scratch and impact

Weight 0.55 (lbs/sqft) 0.55 (lbs/sqft) 0.48 (lb/sqft)

Insulation Value 1.8 BTU higher 1.8 BTU higher 0.8 BTU higher

Free of Free of VOC Formaldehyde Formaldehyde Formaldehyde

15 More Years of 15 More Years of 15 More Years of Warranty Guarantee Guarantee Guarantee

Global Warming Potential 0.17 kg/sf of CO2 0.17 kg/sf of CO2 0.11 kg/sf of CO2 (kgCO2eq./sf.) 500 miles less less less 50

6. Decide the importance of each advantage.

List the advantages of each Discuss the importance of alternative each advantage 51

7. Evaluate cost data if applicable

Analyze cost Optima Ultima (Mineral Optima PB Optra

(Fiberglass)data Fiber) (Fiberglass) (Fiberglass) $/sf. San $4.54 $2.83 $4.79 Francisco $/sf. New York $3.50 $2.00 $3.75

$/sf. Sidney $2.23 $1.77 52

Recommendations 53

Asia-Australia

Tokyo 500 We should be using Optra for 400 Optima (Fiberglass) Asia and Australia projects. It 300 Ultima (Mineral Fiber) is the cheaper option in the 200 short-term. Optima with plant based 100 binder (Fiberglass) We will be losing some 0 Optra (Fiberglass) advantages: Importance of Advantages Importanceof $0.00$1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 • Using a product with Cost per SF. Formaldehyde • losing 15 years of Sidney guarantee 500 • losing resistance to scratch 400 Optima (Fiberglass) and impact. 300 Ultima (Mineral Fiber) But we will be wining other 200 advantages: Optima with plant based 100 binder (Fiberglass) • Using a lighter product. 0 Optra (Fiberglass) Importance of Advantages Importanceof $0.00$1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 Cost per SF. 54

North America

500 450 400 Optima (Fiberglass) 350 300 250 Ultima (Mineral Fiber) 200 For the SF project I will 150 Optima with plant based suggest to use Optima PB 100 binder (Fiberglass) 50 instead of Optima. Optima Importance of Advantages Importanceof Optra (Fiberglass) 0 $0.00$1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 PB does not have Cost per SF. Formaldehyde and cost just NY $0.25 more per sf. 500

400 Optima (Fiberglass)

300 Ultima (Mineral Fiber) 200 Optima with plant based 100 binder (Fiberglass) 0 Optra (Fiberglass) Importance of Advantages Importanceof $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 Cost per SF. Conclusions

• Decision-making methods matter

• CBA methods are superior to value-based methods. • Methods that weight factors are not taking decisions based on the difference of the alternatives. • CBA helps stakeholders to make decisions based on relevant facts minimising conflict and helping to reach consensus.

• CBA can integrate multiple factors considering sustainability • With CBA one can integrate different perspectives • Consider environmental, social and economic aspects based on context • Reduce the amount of waste generated by unsound decisions. • Owner, Architect, and Engineers should participate in the decision-making process.

• We need stringent sustainability targets to make a difference: • A standardize system to evaluate carbon content • A standardize system to ranking product by carbon content Thanks!

This concludes The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems Course

Lean Construction Institute [email protected]