ASTM E1765-2007e1 Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems《利用分.pdf

《ASTM E1765-2007e1 Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems《利用分.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASTM E1765-2007e1 Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems《利用分.pdf（15页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Designation: E 1765 071Standard Practice forApplying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) toMultiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related toBuildings and Building Systems1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 1765; the number immediately following the designation indicates th

2、e year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1NOTESection 2.2 was editorially corrected in January 2009.INT

3、RODUCTIONThe analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is one of a set of multi-attribute decision analysis (MADA)methods that considers nonmonetary attributes (qualitative and quantitative) in addition to commoneconomic evaluation measures (such as life-cycle costing or net benefits) when evaluating proje

4、ctalternatives. Building-related decisions depend in part on how competing options perform with respectto nonmonetary attributes. This practice complements existing ASTM standards on buildingeconomics by incorporating the existing economic/monetary measures of worth described in thosestandards into

5、a more comprehensive standard method of evaluation that includes nonmonetary(quantitative and nonquantitative) benefits and costs. TheAHP is the MADAmethod described in thispractice.2It has three significant strengths: an efficient attribute weighting process of pairwisecomparisons; hierarchical des

6、criptions of attributes, which keep the number of pairwise comparisonsmanageable; and available software to facilitate its use.31. Scope1.1 This practice presents a procedure for calculating andinterpreting AHP scores of a projects total overall desirabilitywhen making building-related capital inves

7、tment decisions.31.2 In addition to monetary benefits and costs, the procedureallows for the consideration of characteristics or attributeswhich decision makers regard as important, but which are notreadily expressed in monetary terms. Examples of such at-tributes that pertain to the selection of a

8、building alternative(and its surroundings) are location/accessibility, site security,maintainability, quality of the sound and visual environment,and image to the public and occupants.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:4E 631 Terminology of Building ConstructionsE 833 Terminology of Building

9、EconomicsE 917 Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildingsand Building SystemsE 964 Practice for Measuring Benefit-to-Cost and Savings-to-Investment Ratios for Buildings and Building SystemsE 1057 Practice for Measuring Internal Rate of Return andAdjusted Internal Rate of Return for Investm

10、ents in Build-ings and Building SystemsE 1074 Practice for Measuring Net Benefits and Net Sav-ings for Investments in Buildings and Building SystemsE 1121 Practice for Measuring Payback for Investments inBuildings and Building SystemsE 1334 Practice for Rating the Serviceability of a Buildingor Buil

11、ding-Related FacilityE 1480 Terminology of Facility Management (Building-Related)E 1557 Classification for Building Elements and Related1This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E06 on Perfor-mance of Buildings and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E06.81 onBuilding Econo

12、mics.Current edition approved April 1, 2007. Published April 2007. Originallyapproved in 1995. Last previous edition approved in 2002 as E 1765 02.2For an extensive overview of MADA methods and a detailed treatment of howto apply two MADA methods (one of which is AHP) to building-related decisions,s

13、ee Norris, G. A., and Marshall, H. E., Multiattribute Decision Analysis: Recom-mended Method for Evaluating Buildings and Building Systems, National Instituteof Standards and Technology, 1995.3This practice presents a stand-alone procedure for performing anAHP analysis.In addition, an ASTM software

14、product for performing AHP analyses has beendeveloped to support and facilitate use of this practice. Users Guide to AHP/ExpertChoice for ASTM Building Evaluation, MNL 29, ASTM, 1998.4For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.

15、org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.SiteworkUNIFORMAT IIE 1660 Classification for Serviceability of

16、 an Office Facilityfor Support for Office WorkE 1661 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Meetings and Group EffectivenessE 1662 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Sound and Visual EnvironmentE 1663 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility

17、for Typical Office Information TechnologyE 1664 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Layout and Building FactorsE 1665 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Facility ProtectionE 1666 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Work Outside No

18、rmal Hours or ConditionsE 1667 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Image to the Public and OccupantsE 1668 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Amenities to Attract and Retain StaffE 1669 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Location

19、, Access and WayfindingE 1670 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Management of Operations and MaintenanceE 1671 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor CleanlinessE 1679 Practice for Setting the Requirements for the Ser-viceability of a Building or Building

20、-Related FacilityE 1692 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Change and Churn by OccupantsE 1693 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Protection of Occupant AssetsE 1694 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Special Facilities and Tech

21、nologiesE 1700 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Structure and Building EnvelopeE 1701 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor ManageabilityE 2320 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Thermal Environment and Indoor Air Conditions2.2 A

22、djuncts:Discount Factor Tables Adjunct to Practices E 917, E 964,E 1057, E 1074, and E 112152.3 ASTM Software Product:AHP/Expert Choice for ASTM Building Evaluation, Soft-ware to Support Practice E 1765.3. Terminology3.1 Definitionsfor definitions used in this practice, refer toTerminologies E 631,

23、E 833, and E 1480.4. Summary of Practice4.1 This practice helps you identify a MADA application,describe the elements that make up a MADA problem, andrecognize the three types of problems that MADAcan address:screening alternatives, ranking alternatives, and choosing afinal “best” alternative.4.2 A

24、comprehensive list of selected attributes (monetaryand nonmonetary) for evaluating building decisions provides apick list for customizing an AHP model that best fits yourbuilding-related decision. Three types of building decisions towhich the list applies are choosing among buildings, choosingamong

25、building components, and choosing among buildingmaterials. Examples of these typical building-related decisionsare provided.4.3 A case illustration of a building choice decision showshow to structure a problem in a hierarchical fashion, describethe attributes of each alternative in a decision matrix

26、, computeattribute weights, check for consistency in pairwise compari-sons, and develop the final desirability scores of each alterna-tive.4.4 A description of the applications and limitations of theAHP method concludes this practice.5. Significance and Use5.1 The AHP method allows you to generate a

27、 singlemeasure of desirability for project alternatives with respect tomultiple attributes (qualitative and quantitative). By contrast,life-cycle cost (Practice E 917), net savings (Practice E 1074),savings-to-investment ratio (Practice E 964), internal rate-of-return (Practice E 1057), and payback

28、(Practice E 1121) meth-ods all require you to put a monetary value on benefits andcosts in order to include them in a measure of project worth.5.2 Use AHP to evaluate a finite and generally small set ofdiscrete and predetermined options or alternatives. SpecificAHP applications are ranking and choos

29、ing among alterna-tives. For example, rank alternative building locations withAHP to see how they measure up to one another, or use AHPto choose among building materials to see which is best foryour application.5.3 Use AHP if no single alternative exhibits the mostpreferred available value or perfor

30、mance for all attributes. Thisis often the result of an underlying trade-off relationship amongattributes. An example is the trade-off between low desiredenergy costs and large glass window areas (which may raiseheating and cooling costs while lowering lighting costs).5.4 Use AHP to evaluate alterna

31、tives whose attributes arenot all measurable in the same units. Also use AHP whenperformance relative to some or all of the attributes isimpractical, impossible, or too costly to measure. For example,while life-cycle costs are directly measured in monetary units,the number and size of offices are me

32、asured in other units, andthe public image of a building may not be practically measur-able in any unit.To help you choose among candidate buildingswith these diverse attributes, use AHP to evaluate youralternatives.5.5 Potential users of AHP include architects, developers,owners, or lessors of buil

33、dings, real estate professionals(commercial and residential), facility managers, building ma-terial manufacturers, and agencies managing building portfo-lios.5Available from ASTM International Headquarters. Order Adjunct No.ADJE091703.E176507126. Procedure6.1 To carry out a MADA analysis using AHP,

34、follow thisprocedure:66.1.1 Identify the elements of your problem to confirm thata MADA analysis is appropriate (see 6.2),6.1.2 Determine the goal or objective of the analysis, selectthe attributes on the basis of which you plan to choose analternative, arrange the attributes in a hierarchy, identif

35、y theattribute sets in the hierarchy, identify the leaf attributes in thehierarchy, and identify alternatives to consider (see 6.3),6.1.3 Construct a decision matrix summarizing availabledata on the performance of each alternative with respect toeach leaf attribute (see 6.4),6.1.4 Compare in pairwis

36、e fashion each alternative againstevery other alternative as to how much better one is than theother with respect to each leaf attribute (see 6.5),6.1.5 Make pairwise comparisons, starting from the bottomof the hierarchy, of the relative importance of each attribute ina given set with respect to the

37、 attribute or goal immediatelyabove that set in the hierarchy (see 6.6), and6.1.6 Compute the final overall desirability score for eachalternative (see 6.7).6.2 Confirm that a MADA analysis is appropriate. Threeelements are typically common to MADA problems.6.2.1 MADA problems involve analysis of a

38、finite andgenerally small set of discrete and predetermined options oralternatives. They do not involve the design of a “best”alternative from among a theoretically infinite set of possibledesigns where the decision maker considers trade-offs amonginteracting continuous decision variables. Selecting

39、 a replace-ment HVAC system for an existing building is a MADAproblem. In contrast, the integrated design and sizing of afuture building and its HVAC system is not a MADA problem.6.2.2 In MADAproblems, no single alternative is dominant,that is, no alternative exhibits the most preferred value orperf

40、ormance for all attributes. If one alternative is dominant, aMADA analysis is not needed. You simply choose that alter-native. The lack of a dominant alternative is often the result ofan underlying trade-off relationship among attributes. Anexample is the trade-off between proximity to the centralbu

41、siness district for convenient meetings with business clientsand the desire for a suburban location that is convenient forcommuting to residential neighborhoods and relatively free ofstreet crime.6.2.3 The attributes in a MADA problem are not all mea-surable in the same units. Some attributes may be

42、 eitherimpractical, impossible, or too costly to measure at all. Forexample, in an office building, energy costs are measurable inlife-cycle cost terms. But the architectural statement of thebuilding may not be practically measurable in any unit. If allrelevant attributes characterizing alternative

43、buildings can beexpressed in terms of monetary costs or benefits scheduled tooccur at specifiable times, then the ranking and selection of abuilding does not require the application of MADA.6.3 Identify the goal of the analysis, the attributes to beconsidered, and the alternatives to evaluate. Displ

44、ay the goaland attributes in a hierarchy.6.3.1 The following case example of a search for publicoffice space illustrates how to organize and display the con-stituents of a hierarchy.6.3.1.1 A state agency needs, within the next 18 months,office space for 300 workers. It seeks a location convenient t

45、othe state capitol building by shuttle. The agency seeks tominimize the travel time and will not accept travel timesgreater than 10 min. It also has telecommunications andcomputer infrastructure requirements that will exclude manybuildings. The goal of the analysis is to find the best buildingfor th

46、e agency.6.3.1.2 The specification of a 10 min maximum travel timefrom the site to the capitol eliminates all buildings outside acertain radius. Having up to 18 months to occupy allows eitherthe construction of a new building or the retrofitting of anexisting building, either of which could be rente

47、d or leased.Telecommunications and computer infrastructure requirementswill limit the search even more. These specifications help theanalyst define the “attributes” and building “alternatives” forthe MADA analysis.6.3.1.3 Attributes selected for the hierarchy, displayed inFig. 1, are occupancy avail

48、ability (within 18 months); infor-mation technology (available telecommunications and com-puter support infrastructure); economics (life-cycle costs ofalternative buildings, owned or leased); and location (howconvenient to capitol building). The analyst works with thedecision maker to make sure that

49、 all significant needs of thedecision maker are covered by the hierarchy of attributes.6.3.2 Fig. 2 covers attribute sets and leaf attributes.6.3.2.1 A set of attributes refers to a complete group ofattributes in the hierarchy which is located under anotherattribute or under the problem goal. There are four separate setsof attributes in the hierarchy displayed in Fig. 2. Each set isenclosed by dashed lines.6.3.2.2 Aleaf attribute is an attribute which has no attributesbelow it in the hierarchy. The eleven leaf attributes present inthe hierarchy in Fig. 2 are shaded.6.4 Constr