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. © Paz Arroyo Course Description 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 Bottom Line Triple The 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? © 2012 Paz Arroyo MCDM Methods Applied to AEC Decisions Bhatt & Macwan 2012 Whole Ding 2005 Buildng El-Anwar et al. 2009 Design Etc 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.