ASTM E1765-2011 Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems《利用分析体.pdf

《ASTM E1765-2011 Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems《利用分析体.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASTM E1765-2011 Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems《利用分析体.pdf（20页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Designation: E1765 11Standard Practice forApplying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) toMultiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related toBuildings and Building Systems1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1765; the number immediately following the designation indicates the y

2、ear 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.INTRODUCTIONThe analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is one of a se

3、t 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 projectalternatives. Building-related decisions depend in part on h

4、ow 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 a more comprehensive standard method of evaluation that includ

5、es 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 descriptions of attributes, which keep the number of pairwise com

6、parisonsmanageable; 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 investment decisions.31.2 In addition to monetary benefits and cost

7、s, 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 attri-butes that pertain to the selection of a building alternative (andits surroundings) are location/access

8、ibility, site security, main-tainability, quality of the sound and visual environment, andimage to the public and occupants.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appr

9、o-priate safety and health practices and determine the applicabil-ity of regulatory limitations prior to use.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:4E631 Terminology of Building ConstructionsE833 Terminology of Building EconomicsE917 Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildingsand Buildin

10、g SystemsE964 Practice for Measuring Benefit-to-Cost and Savings-to-Investment Ratios for Buildings and Building SystemsE1057 Practice for Measuring Internal Rate of Return andAdjusted Internal Rate of Return for Investments in Build-ings and Building SystemsE1074 Practice for Measuring Net Benefits

11、 and Net Savingsfor Investments in Buildings and Building SystemsE1121 Practice for Measuring Payback for Investments inBuildings and Building SystemsE1334 Practice for Rating the Serviceability of a Building1This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E06 on Perfor-mance of Buildings

12、and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E06.81 onBuilding Economics.Current edition approved March 1, 2011. Published April 2011. Originallyapproved in 1995. Last previous edition approved in 2007 as E1765 071. DOI:10.1520/E1765-11.2For an extensive overview of MADA methods and a detailed t

13、reatment of howto apply two MADA methods (one of which is AHP) to building-related decisions,see 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 p

14、resents a stand-alone procedure for performing anAHP analysis.In addition, an ASTM software product for performing AHP analyses has beendeveloped to support and facilitate use of this practice. Software to Support ASTME1765: Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) toMultiat

15、tribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and BuildingSystems, MNL 29, ASTM, 1998.4For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards

16、Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.or Building-Related FacilityE1480 Terminology of Facility Management (Building-Related)E1557 Classification for Building Elements and RelatedSit

17、eworkUNIFORMAT IIE1660 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Support for Office WorkE1661 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Meetings and Group EffectivenessE1662 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Sound and Visual EnvironmentE1663

18、 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Typical Office Information TechnologyE1664 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Layout and Building FactorsE1665 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Facility ProtectionE1666 Classification for Se

19、rviceability of an Office Facilityfor Work Outside Normal Hours or ConditionsE1667 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Image to the Public and OccupantsE1668 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Amenities to Attract and Retain StaffE1669 Classification fo

20、r Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Location, Access and WayfindingE1670 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Management of Operations and MaintenanceE1671 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor CleanlinessE1679 Practice for Setting the Requirements fo

21、r the Ser-viceability of a Building or Building-Related FacilityE1692 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Change and Churn by OccupantsE1693 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Protection of Occupant AssetsE1694 Classification for Serviceability of an Of

22、fice Facilityfor Special Facilities and TechnologiesE1700 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Structure and Building EnvelopeE1701 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor ManageabilityE2320 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Thermal E

23、nvironment and Indoor Air Conditions2.2 Adjuncts:Discount Factor Tables Adjunct to Practices E917, E964,E1057, E1074, and E112152.3 ASTM Software Product:MNL 29 Software to SupportASTM E1765: Standard Prac-tice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) toMultiattribute Decision Analysis of Inv

24、estments Relatedto Buildings and Building Systems43. Terminology3.1 DefinitionsFor definitions used in this practice, referto Terminologies E631, E833, and E1480.4. Summary of Practice4.1 This practice helps you identify a MADA application,describe the elements that make up a MADA problem, andrecogn

25、ize the three types of problems that MADAcan address:screening alternatives, ranking alternatives, and choosing afinal “best” alternative.4.2 A comprehensive list of selected attributes (monetaryand nonmonetary) for evaluating building decisions provides apick list for customizing an AHP model that

26、best fits yourbuilding-related decision. Three types of building decisions towhich the list applies are choosing among buildings, choosingamong building components, and choosing among buildingmaterials. Examples of these typical building-related decisionsare provided.4.3 A case illustration of a bui

27、lding choice decision showshow to structure a problem in a hierarchical fashion, describethe attributes of each alternative in a decision matrix, computeattribute weights, check for consistency in pairwise compari-sons, and develop the final desirability scores of each alterna-tive.4.4 A description

28、 of the applications and limitations of theAHP method concludes this practice.5. Significance and Use5.1 The AHP method allows you to generate a singlemeasure of desirability for project alternatives with respect tomultiple attributes (qualitative and quantitative). By contrast,life-cycle cost (Prac

29、tice E917), net savings (Practice E1074),savings-to-investment ratio (Practice E964), internal rate-of-return (Practice E1057), and payback (Practice E1121) 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 eva

30、luate a finite and generally small set ofdiscrete and predetermined options or alternatives. SpecificAHP applications are ranking and choosing 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 m

31、aterials to see which is best foryour application.5.3 Use AHP if no single alternative exhibits the mostpreferred available value or performance for all attributes. Thisis often the result of an underlying trade-off relationship amongattributes. An example is the trade-off between low desiredenergy

32、costs and large glass window areas (which may raiseheating and cooling costs while lowering lighting costs).5.4 Use AHP to evaluate alternatives whose attributes arenot all measurable in the same units. Also use AHP whenperformance relative to some or all of the attributes isimpractical, impossible,

33、 or too costly to measure. For example,while life-cycle costs are directly measured in monetary units,the number and size of offices are measured 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 di

34、verse attributes, use AHP to evaluate youralternatives.5.5 Potential users of AHP include architects, developers,owners, or lessors of buildings, real estate professionals5Available from ASTM International Headquarters. Order Adjunct No.ADJE091703.E1765 112(commercial and residential), facility mana

35、gers, building ma-terial manufacturers, and agencies managing building portfo-lios.6. Procedure6.1 To carry out a MADA analysis using AHP, 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 o

36、f the analysis, selectthe attributes on the basis of which you plan to choose analternative, arrange the attributes in a hierarchy, identify 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 ma

37、trix summarizing availabledata on the performance of each alternative with respect toeach leaf attribute (see 6.4),6.1.4 Compare in pairwise 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 pai

38、rwise comparisons, starting from the bottomof the hierarchy, of the relative importance of each attribute ina given set with respect to the 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

39、Confirm that a MADA analysis is appropriate. Threeelements are typically common to MADA problems.6.2.1 MADA problems involve analysis of a finite andgenerally small set of discrete and predetermined options oralternatives. They do not involve the design of a “best”alternative from among a theoretica

40、lly infinite set of possibledesigns where the decision maker considers trade-offs amonginteracting continuous decision variables. Selecting 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 n

41、ot a MADA problem.6.2.2 In MADAproblems, no single alternative is dominant,that is, no alternative exhibits the most preferred value orperformance 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

42、 is often the result ofan underlying trade-off relationship among attributes. Anexample is the trade-off between proximity to the centralbusiness district for convenient meetings with business clientsand the desire for a suburban location that is convenient forcommuting to residential neighborhoods

43、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 eitherimpractical, impossible, or too costly to measure at all. Forexample, in an office building, energy costs are measurable inlife-cycle cost terms. But the

44、architectural statement of thebuilding may not be practically measurable in any unit. If allrelevant attributes characterizing alternative buildings can beexpressed in terms of monetary costs or benefits scheduled tooccur at specifiable times, then the ranking and selection of abuilding does not req

45、uire the application of MADA.6.3 Identify the goal of the analysis, the attributes to beconsidered, and the alternatives to evaluate. Display 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-stit

46、uents 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 tothe state capitol building by shuttle. The agency seeks tominimize the travel time and will not accept travel timesgreater than 10 min. It also has telecommunic

47、ations andcomputer infrastructure requirements that will exclude manybuildings. The goal of the analysis is to find the best buildingfor the 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

48、months to occupy allows eitherthe construction of a new building or the retrofitting of anexisting building, either of which could be rented or leased.Telecommunications and computer infrastructure requirementswill limit the search even more. These specifications help theanalyst define the “attribut

49、es” and building “alternatives” forthe MADA analysis.6.3.1.3 Attributes selected for the hierarchy, displayed inFig. 1, are occupancy availability (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 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.