0&`0 User Manual - IEA Solar Heating & Cooling Programme
Contents
1. MCDM 23 User Manual MCDM 23 Tool Sub Task C of IEA Task23 C Program Files MCDM 23 Projects example mcd WA File Criteria Value Tables Weights Values Results Help lej x DISA Starting A New Project IEA Task 23 Multi Criteria Decision Making Tool for choosing the best building design MCDM 23 is a tool that automates some of the tasks in comparing two or more building design Buildin rman har schemes The design team defines and weights uilding perfo ance chart i Peek ees Life Cycle Cost their own selection criteria and sub criteria The tool produces star diagrams such as to one shown ida ee Environmental for each scheme as an aid in organizing the tyne evaluation and selection process Best attainable Iding being performance luated Functionality Tie Which should be selec Indoor Quality Minimum acceptable performance score of 4 Maximum reasonably attainable performance scor of 10 MCDM 23 C Program Files MCDM 234Projects example med 2 2 01 5 11 PM Opening screen design by Parichart Chimklai MCDM 23 User Manual Page 2 IEA Solar Heating and Cooling Task 23 Optimization Solar Energy Use in Large Buildings The main objective of Task 23 is to ensure the most appropriate use of solar energy in each specific building project for the purpose of optimizing the use of solar energy and also of promoting more use of solar energy in the building sector This is2. 9 SV CC SAL 1 Rd 100 10 Dep CC Td Rtax 100 D sel LT D xD 12 Where amp means a summation from i 0 to Td 1 i 0 sro 1 Do 1 i sr sro 1 Rd 100 D sr MCDM 23 User Manual Page 29 i k sr St 1 Rd 100 Dg srk b 1 Rop 100 1 Rtax 100 1 Rd 100 13 c gt 1 Rmt 100 1 Rtax 100 1 Rd 100 14 Where gt means a summation from i 0 to TI 1 Appendix D Values and Scores Two terms are used in MCDM 23 Value and Score It is important to understand the distinction Value is a raw result It can be a number such as the 125 kWh m annual energy use or it can be a phrase such as better than average Score is a converted result converted using the value table for the sub criterion Scores are on a fixed scale from 4 to 10 where a 4 means marginally acceptable and a 10 means maximum reasonably attainable The user sets up the measurement scales for each of the sub criteria In a value table for a quantitative sub criterion such as annual energy use the value table may equate 300 kWh m to a score of 4 and 80 kWh m2 to a score of 10 Intermediate values would equate to intermediate scores For example an annual energy use of 125 kWh m might equate to a score of 7 As in this example a smaller value may yield a larger score Measurement scales need not be linear but they must be monotonic In a value table for a qualitative sub criterion such as architectural qua
3. In the case of a public building there is normally no mortgage and you can check NO When there is a mortgage it is usually for a fixed term and the owner can benefit from reduction in annual taxes by declaring the interest as a deduction The tax savings is calculated based on the incremental tax bracket of the individual or corporation If this applies in your situation enter the incremental tax rate If it does not apply then enter zero as the incremental tax rate When you have entered the financial parameters click the Calculate button on the LCC Calculation screen to perform the calculation The coefficients appear at the bottom of the screen Click Next to transfer these values into the worksheets and the LCC Measurement Scales The Life Cycle Cost Measurement Scale appears as follows MCDM 23 User Manual Page 15 Value table for Life cycle cost lol x LCC Calculator Input values 2 LCC calculation Present worth Score Unit 1000 E Coefficient of construction cost a 0 683 33134 62 Coefficient of first year energy cost 19 395 35643 23 Coefficient of first year maintenance cost c 19 395 8 good 38151 84 7 fairtogood 40660 45 Excellent Marginal 6 far 43169 06 Construction cost 40000 45000 5 borderline fair 45677 67 Annual energy cost 200 800 marginally acceptable 48186 25 Annual maintenance cost 100 100 Life cycle cost 3313462 48186 25 O
4. done by enabling the building designers to carry out trade off analyses between the need for and potential use of energy conservation daylighting passive solar active solar and photo voltaic technologies in systematic design processes In addition the objective of the Task is to ensure that the buildings promote sustainable development This is done by including considerations of other resource use and of local and global environmental impact in the trade off analyses to be carried out The work in the Task is divided into four subtasks In Task 23 all participants work on all Subtasks 1 Case stories 2 Design process guidelines 3 Methods and tools for trade off analysis and 4 Dissemination and demonstration Participants the first named is the contact person for each country Norway Anne Grete Hestnes Operating Agent Norway Inger Andresen Norway Per Kr Monsen Denmark Torben Esbensen Sub Task A Leader Denmark S ren Aggerholm Denmark Christina Henricksen Switzerland Pierre Jaboyedoff Sub Task B Leader Switzerland Werner Sutter USA J Douglas Balcomb Sub Task C Leader Netherlands Bart Poel Sub Task D Leader Netherlands Zednek Zavrel Netherlands Gerelle van Chruchen Austria Susanne Geissler Austria Wibke Tritthart Canada Nils Larsson Germany G nter L hnert Germany Matthias Schuler Finland Jyri Nienemen Finland Pekka Huovila Japan Mitsuhiro Udagawa Japan Jun Tanimoto Spain Luis Alvarez Ude Spain Manuel Macias Sw
5. following descriptions assume that you are starting with a clean slate A MCDM 23 User Manual Page 8 Criteria Criteria are the basis for evaluating the relative merits of different building schemes Criteria define what is important in the selection process Examples of possible criteria are energy consumption sustainability public relations value and life cycle cost Criteria fall into two categories main criteria and sub criteria Five to eight main criteria are selected Sub criteria are sub divisions within these categories Main criteria do not have to have sub criteria they can stand alone With no project open clicking Criteria in the main menu brings up a blank criteria screen The first decision is whether to use Life Cycle Cost LCC as a main criteria If you want to do this and you also want to use the built in LCC calculation algorithm then you must select Life Cycle Cost as your first criteria The program is very finicky about having the name exactly right and the three sub criteria names exactly right Otherwise the program will not use the built in LCC procedures See LCC Procedures in the MCDM 23 Help for information about the procedures and algorithms The easy way to get the LCC entries correct is to click the Default button to the right of the first blank criteria box The screen will now appear as follows Criterion 1 3 Criterion 4 6 Criterion 7 8 Regard Main Criteria Sub Criteria d d C
6. process The Need for a Facilitator Whether used by a design team or a design competition jury it is strongly recommended that one person serve the role of facilitator The facilitator guides the team or jury through the MCDM process The facilitator is expert in running MCDM 23 It would be a mistake to require that everyone involved be knowledgeable about MCDM 23 Just having to read this manual would intimidate many people who would MCDM 23 User Manual Page 6 otherwise willingly participate in the process letting the facilitator deal with the program Many designers are not software people and would be put off by having to learn a program particularly when they might be suspicious of a method that is new and different a departure from their normal process You need to ease them into it The steps required to run MCDM 23 require agreement by the team or jury Otherwise the exercise is futile the group will never buy into the process or accept the results This means that the group the team of the jury must meet together early to agree on the criteria to be used and the importances weights each is to be assigned They should also understand the significance of the measurement scales and participate in their development One step in the process the voting to determine weights requires use of the computer program to enter the votes However this might best be accomplished by having each participant fill out a paper bal
7. rigor The disadvantages are that more votes are needed it is less transparent for the average user and the redundancy of the votes leading to the need to made a consistency check is very confusing for users The advantage of the Grading method is it simplicity and transparency The disadvantage is that it has a less rigorous mathematical foundation In practical terms we observe that the AHP method tends to spread out the weights more than the Grading method It is really up to the individual voter to use the method that they are most comfortable with It is possible for one voter to use one method and for another to use the other method MCDM 23 User Manual Page 27 Appendix C Life Cycle Cost There is a special procedure for using Life Cycle Cost as a criteria MCDM 23 has a build in calculator that computes the life cycle cost based on your financial parameters discount rate energy cost escalation rate mortgage terms if any etc and your building costs construction cost annual operating cost and annual maintenance cost To have access to the procedure you MUST define the LCC criteria precisely together with a precise definition of the sub criteria The foolproof way to set this up is to make LCC the first criteria by clicking the Default button to the right in the first Criteria dialog box Do not edit any of the names The present value of the life cycle cost LCC is the sum of three terms LCC a construction
8. 0 votes there are only 5 weights Thus the votes are redundant If the voter is not consistent then the consistency index CI will be large If he or she is completely consistent then CI is zero Adequate consistency exists when CI lt 0 15 in which case the weights are recorded directly If CI is greater than 0 15 the user is notified and can either vote again or barge ahead with his or her calculated weights Click OK in the above box to return to the original weighting screen showing all the voters and the current weights as we showed earlier Weight the main criteria x Life cycle cost Resource use Environmental Architectural Indoor quality Weighting by loadin li g quality AHP Grading Y 2_ MrDefeult 10 200 0 200 0 200 0 200 Mr Tanimoto 0 261 Mr Balcomb 10 114 Ms Andresen 10 150 Ms Hestnes 0 184 Average 0 182 0 158 0 186 0 172 0 302 Adopting Weight p1 82 fo 58 fo 86 p1 v2 0 302 Help Pie Chart A MCDM 23 User Manual Page 21 After all the votes are recorded the row of weights labeled Average shows the arithmetic average of the weights of all of the voters Click the button labeled Adopting to display the following screen Select the set of Weight you wantto use User defined Average Mr Default s Mr Tanimoto s Mr Balcomb s Ms Andresen s Ms Hestnes s Showing all the voters names Average and User Defined Usually having solicited votes from all par
9. K Clear Cancel L Help Clear Apply values Except that the values in the tables are initially blank Fill in LCC values corresponding to each of the scores from 10 to 4 You should start by defining the upper and lower bounds corresponding to best reasonably attainable or excellent and marginally acceptable respectively Then fill in the other values remembering that they must be monotonic A calculator is provided to help you This is on the right side of the LCC Value Table screen The three coefficients a b and c calculated by the LCC Calculator are displayed The two tables provide the option to calculate two LCC values using the equation LCC a construction cost b annual operating cost c annual maintenance cost Simply enter the appropriate values for the most optimistic scenario Excellent and the marginally acceptable scenario Marginal and the calculator does the arithmetic for the LCC When you have finished with the two columns click the Apply Values button to transfer these LCC numbers directly to the LCC Measurement Scale Then click the Linear Fill button or fill in the other values or enter your own non linear values weights Weights define relative importance Weights are used for main criteria and then for sub criteria within each main criterion Weights are a set of numbers which add up to one For example if the criteria are Color Texture and Brilliance then weigh
10. Page 13 To define a alternative set of qualitative descriptors simply type over the names in the descriptor boxes For example you could replace the word excellent corresponding to a score of 10 with the phrase World Class All the descriptors can be changed in this way Instructions for the Special Case of Life Cycle Cost Select Life Cycle Cost in the Measurement Scale menu If you have set up Life Cycle Cost to use the built in procedure you will see the following box MCDM 23 Question 7 Do you want to use the build in life cycle cost procedure J Answer Yes The Life Cycle Cost Measurement Scale screen appears There is just one table in which the value is the calculated Life Cycle Cost The present value of the life cycle cost LCC is the sum of three terms LCC a construction cost b annual energy cost c annual maintenance cost The construction cost includes the cost of adding features to the building compared with a typical building of the same size and type in the same location Although the construction cost may be higher for a sustainable building than for a typical building the annual operating cost will be lower likely resulting in a lower LCC The three coefficients a b and c are calculated using standard life cycle cost equations See Appendix B for the equations programmed into MCDM 23 The process of multiplying the weights by the costs and summing the three terms is carried
11. Significantly less important Not important When you are finished click OK The weights appear in the row to the right of the voter s name AHP Method A more rigorous method for calculating weights is the AHP method In this method the person voting identifies the relative importance of all pairs of criteria If there are 6 criteria then there are 6 x 5 2 15 pairs and thus 15 votes to be made Click the blue button to display the following screen MCDM 23 User Manual Page 19 Weight by Mr Tanimoto olx Click on each square Answer question Cancel When all of the squares are filled click OK OK Help Indoor quality Architectural quality Environmental loading Resource use Life cycle cost Resource use CRE Environmental loading m Architectural quality E Except that all the squares are initially not colored In this example there are 5 criteria and thus 10 pairs Click any square The following screen appears Questionare oO x Move the slider considering comparative importance between Architectural quality and Environmental loading Architectural quality Environmental loading totally important equally totally important important Record this vote Cancel The names are those corresponding to the square that was selected in this case Architectural Quality and Environmental Loading Use the slider to indicate your assignment of importance Note that a number appears above the slider
12. al maintenance cost Annual electiciy O O 083 Annual electiciy O O 083 Annual fuels 19 40 0 23 0 21 ao 70d EE Annual water 0 21 Construction materials Land Annual CO2 emissions from operation 0 20 0 15 502 emissions from construction ICO2 emissions from construction 0 20 INOx emissions from construction 9 0 Annual NOx emissions from operation 0 20 3 0 9 0 i 9 0 Identity 0 35 Scale proportion 0 25 Integrity coherence 0 20 Integration in urban context Air quality Lighting quality 0 20 0 25 0 25 hermal quality 0 25 Acoustic quality 0 25 Main criteria Total weighted Weights Overall score Page 24 The button labeled Export needs some explanation This initiates an export action that allows you to save the worksheet as a comma delimited file csv format You will see a screen similar to a Save As screen asking you to specify a path and a file name After saving the file you can open it in a spreadsheet program such as Excel or any text editor or word processor This will allow you to manipulate the numbers arbitrarily Formulas are not copied The Stacked bar graph and View results for all scheme options are self explanatory MCDM 23 User Manual Page 25 Appendix A Criteria Selected by the IEA Task 23 Group The following is a list of criteria and sub criteria for solar building design proposed b
13. as you move it This relates to the number that is entered into the AHP matrix The numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and 9 are translated into the standard numbers used in the AHP method 1 9 1 7 1 5 1 3 1 3 5 7 and 9 The weights are determined by calculating the principal eigenvector of the final matrix See Appendix C A guide to voting is the following End of the scale totally important compared to the other criteria Next to the end greatly more important than the other criteria Next to the center somewhat more important than the other criteria Center of the scale equally important to the other criteria MCDM 23 User Manual Page 20 After you have placed the slider to the position desired click Record this Vote This returns you to the previous matrix with the box now colored in If you don t vote any single box then that box is assigned a default vote of Equally Important When you have clicked on all the boxes and recorded all your votes then click OK You will see the screen flicker as the program executes a DOS program called calm exe returning with the following screen Result for Criteria oO x Criteria Weight Life cycle cost 0 261 Resource use 0 033 Environmental loading 0 063 Architectural quality 0 129 Indoor quality 0 513 Consistency 0 059 Retry In this case Mr Tanimoto was quite consistent in his votes Consistency in this situation relates to the fact that while there are 1
14. at performs worse that the regulation For example the Measurement Scale for Annual Energy Use might look like the following SCORE judgement Annual energy use kWh m 10 excellent 80 9 good to 100 excellent 8 good 120 7 fair to good 140 6 fair 160 5 borderline fair 190 4 marginally 250 acceptable The value of 80 kWh m is the best reasonably attainable performance The value of 250 kWh m is the maximum allowed by regulation 3 It is possible to substitute other words for the descriptors excellent good etc To do this simply overwrite the descriptor names The first column of the measurement scale is always the same The last column changes with the criteria Note that the table can be non linear In this case the difference between a score of 9 and a score of 10 is 20kWh m whereas the difference between a score of 4 and a score of 5 is 60kWh m three times greater When you are setting up a measurement scale you can see a graph of the relationship between the values and the scores as shown below lt MCDM 23 User Manual Page 11 Energy Use Scoring 250 200 150 100 50 Annual energy Use kWh m2 Score Simply click the appropriate graph icon in the Measurement Scale El screen If you are still confused see Appendix D where there is more discussion about the distinction between values and scores Setting Up the Measure
15. cost b annual energy cost c annual maintenance cost The construction cost includes the cost of adding features to the building compared with a typical building of the same size and type in the same location Although the construction cost may be higher for a sustainable building than for a typical building the annual operating cost will be lower likely resulting in a lower LCC The three coefficients a b and c are calculated using standard life cycle cost equations The process of multiplying the weights by the costs and summing the three terms is carried out in the worksheet arithmetic So at this point all that is needed are the three coefficients The LCC for each building is calculated later in the building worksheet depending on the three costs that have been entered for that building MCDM 23 calculates the three coefficients for you based on your financial parameters This is Life Cycle Cost made easy Life Cycle Cost Equations Nomenclature TI life of the building year Tm mortgage period year Td depreciation period year Ri interest rate Rd discount rate Rdp down payment percentage Rtax incremental tax rate Rop increasing rate of annual operating cost Rmt increasing rate of annual maintenance cost SAL salvage value construction cost ND AOC annual operating cost monetary unit AMC annual maintenance cost monetary unit AP annual payment monetary unit CC const
16. e CD ROM in Windows Explorer and double click Setup exe or click Run in the Start menu type in D setup and click Run Follow instructions that appear on your screen MCDM 23 will normally install in the Program Files directory on your C drive MCDM 23 requires 3 65 MB of hard disk space The default directory for saving MCDM 23 files is C Program Files Mcdm 23 Projects The installation will leave a startup icon on your desktop To start MCDM 23 click the MCDM 23 icon MCDM 23 User Manual Page 7 The Menu Bar The menu bar provides the main entrees into the MCDM 23 program Kil File Criteria Value Tables Weights Values Result Help Initially all the items except File are ghosted appear grey because they are not active unless a project is open The first thing you will probably want to do is to open a project Click File and Open or click the Open icon on the tool bar Select Example and click OK This will open the example provided with MCDM 23 Browse around in the example moving from left to right in the menu Starting a New Project As with many programs you can either start a new project using an existing project as a starting point or start from scratch If your new project has a lot in common with a previous one then it may be best to use it as a starting template The advantage of starting from an existing project is that you start with the criteria measurement scales weights schemes and scores that you used
17. eciprocals of these numbers The diagonal matrix cells are all ones Once you have voted on all the pairs the weights are calculated by MCDM 23 The weights are the principal eigen vector of the matrix It is important that your answers to the questions be consistent As part of the evaluation a consistence index CI is calculated The smaller the number the better Prof Saaty recommends that consistency index should be less than 0 15 If your CI is larger than 0 15 the program will notify you and give you a chance to change your votes However you may elect to forge ahead anyway with a CI greater than 0 15 The advantage of the AHP method is its technical rigor The disadvantages are that more votes are needed and it is less transparent for the average user Grading Method A simpler alternative to the AHP method for calculating weights is the Grading method In this method the person voting first selects their top criteria Then they rate each of the other criteria in comparison to the top criteria using a 10 to 1 rating scale where 1 means that the criteria is of no significance and 10 means that it is of equal significance The weights are proportional to the votes normalized to a sum of 1 000 The advantage of the Grading method is it simplicity and transparency The disadvantage is that it has a less rigorous mathematical foundation than the AHP method Comparing the Methods The advantage of the AHP method is its technical
18. ed to this scale We might be asked How do you rate Joe s abilities on a scale of 1 to 10 There was even a movie called 10 in which a guy developed an obsession over a girl he reckoned to be a 10 In MCDM 23 the 1 to 10 scale is truncated at the bottom resulting in a 4 to 10 scale The reason is a common theorem in decision making theory that holds that a scale with seven items is about as fine a scale as people can easily deal with Ten gradations is a bit too fine So we just use the top 7 values retaining the scale of 10 concept In the 4 to 10 scale in MCDM 23 the upper and lower ends have particular meanings MCDM 23 User Manual Page 10 1 The upper end a score of 10 means that the building rates as excellent To be more exact the 10 means that the building is the best reasonable attainable with regard to the particular criteria This is a bit softer than saying that it is the best theoretically attainable For example it might be conceivable to create a zero energy building but double the cost of the project by purchasing PV cells In this case you might set a practical lower bound of energy use close to the internal gains of the building 2 The lower end as score of 4 means that while it is just marginally possible to construct a building that scores this poorly For example the maximum building energy use allowed by regulation could be the lower bound One is not legally allowed to construct a building th
19. eden Maria Wall Sweden Boris Wall MCDM 23 User Manual Page 3 MCDM 23 User Manual by Dr J Douglas Balcomb Research Fellow National Renewable Energy Laboratory Center for Buildings and Thermal Systems 1617 Cole Blvd Golden CO 80401 USA doug_balcomb nrel gov The MCDM procedure and MCDM 23 program were developed within Sub Task C of the International Energy Agency Solar Heating and Cooling Task 23 This title of the task is Optimization of Solar Energy Use in Large Buildings Sub Task C concerns Tools for Trade Off Analysis February 2001 MCDM 23 User Manual Page 4 Acknowledgements Doug Balcomb National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the USA NREL is Sub Task C leader and led the effort to develop the MCDM procedure and the MCDM 23 program Particular thanks go to Anne Grete Hestnes Operating Agent for Task 23 and to Inger Andresen who contributed many of the key concepts regarding the multi criteria decision making process both at SINTEF Norway Thanks are also due to all the Task 23 participants who contributed direction and ideas as the procedure was developed from Austria Canada Denmark Finland Germany Japan Netherlands Norway Spain Sweden Switzerland and the USA MCDM 23 is programmed in Visual Basic by Japan Jun Tanimoto programmed the original version in 1998 while he was a Visiting Scientist at the NREL working under the direction of Doug Balcomb Major revisions were subsequ
20. en in step 2 might appear as follows Enter values for Scheme C lo x Life cycle cost Environmental loading Architectural quality Indoor quality Resource use Annual electricity iii 70 Annual fuels Annual water Canstuton material OoOO M m m a o Here we have defined a third scheme Scheme C in a project with 5 main criteria which show as tabs across the top The second main criterion is Resource Use The first two A MCDM 23 User Manual Page 23 sub criteria are quantitative and the last three are qualitative as you can discern from the upper and lower scale values Values are entered in the column on the far right white background The values must lie between the upper and lower bounds indicated in the center columns You can see your value table for each sub criteria plotted as a graph by clicking on the graph icon The MCDM 23 program interpolates your value within the value table producing a score that is shown to two significant figures in the column labeled Score Qualitative scores are integers but quantitative scores are linearly interpolated between two points You may enter up to 7 schemes in a project Result Whew Now you are ready to see the fruits of your labors Was it worth it After you have entered values for one or all the buildings you want to evaluate click Results in the main menu You are given three choices of results Worksheet Stacked bar graph and View r
21. ently made in the method requiring new programming These revisions were made in 2000 and 2001 at Kyushu University in Fukuoka Japan under the direction of Dr Tanimoto who had returned to his Associate Professor position The programming itself was done by a Kyushu University student from Thailand Parichart Chimklai as part of her doctoral project Doug Balcomb provided general oversight and wrote the program Help the User Manual and the PowerPoint presentation these files are on the distribution CD ROM Thanks are due Mitsuhiro Udagawa Task 23 contact person for Japan for support Kogakuin University Japan MCDM 23 is not copy protected Anyone is free to use copy or modify the program The source code is included on the distribution CD ROM The developers request only that they be referenced and that the origin of the program within the International Energy Agency Solar Heating and Cooling Task 23 be acknowledged MCDM 23 User Manual Page 5 MCDM 23 User Manual MCDM 23 is a new design tool program that automates many tasks involved in using the Multi Criteria Decision Making method developed by the International Energy Agency Solar Heating and Cooling Task 23 The end products of the program are worksheets bar charts and associated star diagrams that quantify how various design schemes stack up according to criteria selected by the user There are two situations where MCDM 23 will be a valuable tool e In the design proce
22. esults for all schemes The worksheet option requires that you select the scheme you want to see The other two show all schemes It is recommended that you print out all these results and distribute them to the design team or competition jury for their review and comment Worksheet The worksheet shows the values weights and scores for one scheme The worksheet provides documentation of the process which would be of particular importance to keep for a public building or a design competition The results of the computations show in the two columns labeled weighted scores these are derived from the scores using the sub weights by calculating simple weighted sums The last column shows the weighted scores the product of the criteria score and the criteria weight The sum at the bottom of the last column is the final score The worksheets can be printed or exported On the worksheet there is a button marked Star Chart Click this button to display a star chart for the scheme The star chart can be copied to the clipboard MCDM 23 User Manual MCDM 23 Worksheet for Scheme C eooo criteria Life Bussa cost Resource use Environmental loading Architectural quality Indoor quality OK Print Star Chat Help Export Sub criteria Constuctioncost 068 cost Se energy cost Sub criteria Weights 0 68 19 40 Sub criteria Sub criteria Total weighted Values Scores Sub scores 15000 Annu
23. green button to the left of the name A description of each method is given in Appendix C along with a comparison of the two methods Grading Method A simple method for calculating weights is the Grading method In this method the person voting first selects their top criteria Then they rate each of the other criteria in comparison to the top criteria using a 10 to 4 rating scale where 4 means that the criteria is of no significance and 10 means that it is of equal significance The weights are proportional to the votes normalized to a sum of 1 000 The advantage of the Grading method is it simplicity and transparency The disadvantage is that it has a less rigorous mathematical foundation Click the green button to display the following screen MCDM 23 User Manual Page 18 Weight main criteria by Mr Balcomb Which criteria is the most important quality v Select relative important value to compare with Indoor quality Life cycle cost a Except that the sliders have initially not been moved All are at 10 First select the most important criteria using the pull down list at the top Here Indoor quality was selected Note that Indoor quality shows grey with a score of 10 Then move the sliders for the other criteria along to the desired number using the following scale grade Relative importance compared with the most important criteria 10 Of equal importance Somewhat less important i
24. lity the value table may equate the phrases ordinary to a score of 4 just plain ugly to a score of 5 and definitely in line for an architectural award to a score of 10 Intermediate descriptors would equate to intermediate scores For example a consensus of better than average of might equate to a score of 7 Having converted all values into scores it is then possible to compare disparate criteria such as annual energy use and architectural quality on a equal footing What was originally an apples and oranges comparison becomes an apples and apples comparison In the world of scores bigger is always better Not all scores need have equal significance Weights are introduced to indicate the relative importance of one criteria against another A larger weight indicates a greater importance It is through the definition of measurement scales and weights that participants define the scales of each sub criteria and the importances of each sub criterion within a main criteria and the importances of different main criteria relative to one another MCDM 23 provides a simple way for users to define measurement scales and two methods of voting for determining weights taking into account the preferences of all participants MCDM 23 User Manual Page 30 Appendix E Examples of Ballots for Voting Preferences Leading to Weights two cases one Grading one AHP
25. lot rather than having participants use the computer themselves The facilitator can then enter the results into the computer perhaps during a coffee break and present the resulting weights using the pie charts when the group reassembles It would be easy to devise a ballot using either the Grading method or the AHP method and make copies to hand around An example of each is shown in Appendix E Another place to use voting is in developing values especially for the non quantitative criteria Quality issues such as architectural quality can often be judged by experts A committee of three or four experts could be appointed to rate the building schemes in question possibly using the 1 to 10 scale After discussion each person could vote their judgements which would then be discussed in the group to give an agreed value to be entered into MCDM 23 INSTALLATION MCDM 23 installs from the MCDM 23 CD ROM This CD also contains e The user manual MCDM User Manual doc 30 pages e A document file titled The Multi Criteria Decision Making Method MCDM Booklet doc 16 pages e A PowerPoint file describing MCDM 23 MCDM 23 ppt 30 images We recommend that you save these to your hard disk and print them To install MCDM 723 insert the CD ROM into your CD drive This will usually initiate the installation process automatically If nothing happens your computer has been set not to start setup automatically In this case navigate to th
26. ment Scales Click Measurement Scales in the Main Menu and click one of the Main criteria For now let us assume that you select a criterion other than Life Cycle Cost The screen appears as follows Develop scale for Architectural quality Value table for Architectural quali ee See ee T Quantitative scale Quantitative scale T Quantitative scale LE Quantitative scale Slur Sia WF Quantitative T M Quantitative T M Quantitative To fF Quantitative scale Unit Unit Unit it eae ST Az Sz marginally acceptable near till ineert infect ail enr ineat Develop all with Qualitative scale means the score will be Qualitative scale sees in the range of 4 10 scale Cre Hep ESS N om es i a i SSS SS a A MCDM 23 User Manual Page 12 You see that there are measurement scales set up for each of the sub criteria Follow the procedure below for each You have two choices in the Measurement Scales screen use qualitative terms or use numbers Click Quantitative Scale to use numbers and then specify your units Specify units in the small grey area to the right of the word units If you don t use numbers you can either accept the default descriptors excellent good etc or define your own qualitative descriptors specifying a string up to 31 characters such as World Class or Likely to win a design award If you select Quantitative Scale then you must fill in the values c
27. orresponding to each of the scores from 10 to 4 You should start by defining the upper and lower bounds corresponding to best reasonably attainable or excellent and marginally acceptable respectively Then fill in the other values remembering that they must be monotonic However they do not have to be linear If you want a linear relationship click the button labeled Linear Fill to automatically fill in 5 values between the upper and lower bounds Click the graph icon gt l to display a graph of the value vs score relationship The following is a set of measurement scales set up for Resource Use with each of the 5 tables defined as quantitative You can mix quantitative and qualitative measurement scales within a main criterion Develop scale for Resource use Value table for Resource use cai P Quantia soos Guertioivescoe F Guomicthe soaa F Guontinive scoe TOM a O T 80 Score Judgement t racine 10 focam 0 7 9 foon awcslant i 8 pow 0 96 7 fern good 109 6 far 1 22 5 ordedine tor 135 4 _ ragnoly sccepteble 15 Cen _ Lr ewfii Dawicpalwith Queditstve scale means the score will be aie Qustiatwe scale developed in herange ol 4 19 ji os Salt i is eTe ees oe Note that the default value table for each sub criteria is a qualitative scale using ik standard descriptors Thus you can skip these if you don t want to change them MCDM 23 User Manual
28. ots and hand them out Participants can mark the ballots which are then collected by the facilitator who subsequently enters the numbers in the program This shields the participants who might well be reticent to use a computer or reluctant to take the time to learn even a simple procedure The method also works if the participants are scattered and need to vote by e mail or fax Making ballots which can then be copied is easy A pair of examples are given in Appendix E Values After you have set up MCDM 23 in the first three steps it is ready to use You can enter up to seven different schemes in the program The process is straightforward 1 Click Values in the main menu Click Enter new building Fill in the name of the building in the New Building screen for example Scheme A 2 The next screen has a series of tabs across the top one for each of your main criteria Starting with the first main criteria fill in the values for each of the sub criteria These must be between the upper and lower bounds for that sub criterion As you fill in each value the corresponding score on the 4 to 10 scale appears in the corresponding box You can click on the graph icon to display the graph showing the relationship you determined earlier for values vs scores Complete the process of defining values for each main criterion 4 Click OK when you are finished Once you start you must fill in all the values before you can exit The scre
29. out in the worksheet arithmetic So at this point all that is needed are the three coefficients The LCC for each building is calculated later in the building worksheet depending on the three costs that have been entered for that building MCDM 23 calculates the three coefficients for you based on your financial parameters This is Life Cycle Cost made easy When you answer Yes you will see the following screen MCDM 23 User Manual Page 14 LCC Calculation mim x life of the building years 25 depreciation period years 31 discount rate compounded annually 4 increasing rate of annual energy cost 5 increasing rate of annual maintenance cost 5 salvage value construction cost 05 Is the building to be mortgaged Yes No mortgage period years 15 interest rate compounded annually g down payment percentage 20 incremental tax rate 31 User defined _ Cancel_ Present worth Coefficient of construction cost a 0 683 Coefficient of firstyear energy cost 19 395 Coefficient of firstyear maintenance cost c 19 395 Next gt gt Except that the three numbers in red at the bottom don t show The LCC equations contain the financial parameters on the LCC Calculation screen such as the discount rate and the annual increase in annual energy cost among others Fill in the values that pertain to your situation If the building is to be mortgaged then fill in the terms of the mortgage
30. previously This will probably be easiest if you are making only minor changes If the design team is the same you may not need to change the criteria or weights You can easily delete previous schemes and substitute new ones You can also add or subtract criteria or sub criteria or revote the weights To start from scratch just open MCDM 23 click the New button the one on the left on the tool bar and begin defining criteria Proceed from the left to the right on the menu first Criteria then Measurement Scales and then Weights We recommend that these steps be carried out at the beginning of a project before any schemes have been generated Having set up the project properly by going through the first three steps you are ready to evaluate schemes or evaluate design competition entries You can enter as many as 7 schemes into the program at one time If there are more schemes than this simply set up a separate project with a different name having the same criteria measurement scales and weights This allows you to evaluate schemes in batches of 7 To define a new scheme click Values in the main menu and select Enter new values Give the new building a name for example Scheme A Then enter the appropriate values When you are finished you can view the results using Results in the main menu To change values after they have been entered click Values in the main menu and select Edit values and then select the scheme by name The
31. riterion 1 K D ooo O a SSS m 2 r r Criterion 2 pi x J Default 3 Clear r r r r Criterion 3 ja a H Default F Clear r r J1 Main criteria were selected oK Caneel Help The number of main criteria must be between 5 8 MCDM 23 User Manual Page 9 Note that the check box to the left is checked This indicates that Criterion 1 is active Note also that the names are filled in for the criterion and three sub criteria These are the exact names required to activate the LCC procedures Note further that the number 1 appears in the box at the bottom indicating that you have selected one main criterion so far To select another main criterion click the check box labeled Criterion 2 Then type in the names of the main criterion and any sub criteria you want to use Note that you can pull in default names for each of the first 6 criteria by simply clicking on the Default button The defaults are the criteria and their sub criteria proposed by the IEA Task 23 group You can edit these if you wish it is simply a time saving feature if you want to use it The full list of IEA Task 23 criteria and sub criteria is given in Appendix A Proceed in this way until you have defined at least 5 main criteria but not more than 8 To see criteria 4 5 and 6 or 7 and 8 click the index tab at the top of the screen When you are satisfied click OK The program will not let you exit until you have defined a
32. ruction cost monetary unit CCt construction cost considering mortgage monetary unit Dep depreciation profit on tax monetary unit LCC Life Cycle Cost monetary unit MCDM 23 User Manual Page 28 MV mortgage value monetary unit Payoff payoff monetary unit SV salvage value monetary unit TD tax deduction monetary unit Present worth of Life Cycle Cost can be described as followings LCC a CC b AOC c AMC 1 a CCt SV Dep CC cael MV CC 1 Rdp 100 3 AP MV Ri 100 1 Ri 100 4 1 Ri 100 1 4 If Tl gt Tm then CCt CC Rdp 100 ZAP 1 Rd 100 TD el where amp means a summation from i 0 to Tm 1 TD can be derived from following arithmetic calculation TD xCC TD 6 Where gt means a summation from i 0 to Tm 1 i 0 Blo 1 Rdp 100 TDo Blo Ri 100 Rtax 100 i Bl Blo 1 Ri 100 AP CC TD Bl Ri 100 Rtax 100 1 Rd 100 i k Bh Blk 1 1 Ri 100 AP CC TD Bl Ri 100 Rtax 100 1 Rd 100 If Tl lt Tm then CCt CC Rdp 100 ZAP 1 Rd 100 TD Payoff 1 Rd 100 7 where amp means a summation from i 0 to Tl 1 TD can be derived from following arithmetic calculation TD CC TD 8 Where gt means a summation from i 0 to TI 1 i 0 Blo 1 Rdp 100 TDo Blo Ri 100 Rtax 100 i 1 Bl Blo 1 Ri 100 AP CC TD BI Ri 100 Rtax 100 1 Rd 100 i k Bh Bhi 1 Ri 100 AP CC TD Bl Ri 100 Rtax 100 1 Rd 100 Payoff M V 1 Ri 100 AP 1 Ri 100 1 Ri 100
33. sonable number More than 30 would probably be too many Appendix B Voting Methods AHP Method The Analytical Hierarchy Process AHP was developed in 1971 by Thomas L Saaty a Professor at Pittsburgh University AHP is widely used in the field of operations research AHP is a decision making procedure combined with a systems approach methodology and subjective evaluation Most decision making processes can be divided into three stages setting the final goal determining of the weights among the criteria and choosing the alternative AHP provides a rational procedure supported by a mathematical background for the latter two stages MCDM 23 User Manual Page 26 In MCDM 23 the full AHP method is not employed Instead the method is used only as a option for determining weights Alternately you can use the Grading method or you can identify weights any way you like and simply enter them into the program The AHP method is automated in MCDM 23 The determination of weights is a two step process In the first step participants vote their preferences Questions are presented for each possible pair of criteria If there are N criteria then there are N x N 1 ways to pair the criteria Thus you vote N x N 1 times The votes are recorded as numbers in a matrix The numbers are 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 1 5 1 7 or 1 9 based on your answers to each question This fills out half the matrix The numbers in the transpose locations are the r
34. ss of a building when the team is making a selection between two or more candidate design schemes e Inadesign competition when a jury is selecting the best design from among several submissions In both cases MCDM 23 will provide an organized structure within which to make an informed decision The tool facilitates the process by automating routine tasks MCDM 23 does not make decisions it leaves that to humans The five steps of the procedure are as follows Get started early 1 Select the main criteria and their sub criteria 2 Determine measurement scales for each of the sub criteria 3 Determine weights and sub weights Propose two or more design schemes 4 Enter values for each scheme 5 Print the worksheet and star diagram for each scheme and the stacked bar graph Select the winning scheme We recommend that the first three steps be carried out at the beginning of a project before any schemes have been generated This way the design team starts with a clear understanding of the project priorities If schemes have already been formulated then there is a chance that some members of the team may be tempted to set up the criteria or weights to favor a particular scheme Similarly a jury using MCDM 23 in a design competition completes the first three steps before reviewing any submissions The criteria and weights should be the same as those published in the request for submittals This sets the stage for an impartial judging
35. t least 5 main criteria You can always click Cancel to bail out Experience has shown that people tend to be overwhelmed if there are more than 8 main criteria and at least 5 are needed in virtually any building situation You will notice that the names you prescribed for the criteria and sub criteria names show up throughout the remaining MCDM 23 screens If you want to change any names this can be done by returning to the Criteria item in the main menu Value Tables The concept of measurement scales is probably the most difficult to grasp of the ideas in MCDM 23 Put simply a measurement scale is a way to convert a value into a score A value can be a number of a phrase depending on whether the criteria is quantitative or qualitative Quantitative values are used for criteria that can be measured directly with numbers such as annual energy use life cycle cost or carbon emissions Qualitative values are words or phrases that can be used to characterize how well a building scheme rates against a particular criteria where the rating is more a matter of judgement not normally subject to quantification These are quality issues such as architectural quality or functionality Some criteria can be characterized either way such as indoor air quality which can be either subjective or rated based on a numerical value In the MCDM method all criteria are ultimately converted to a qualitative scale using the familiar scale of 1 to 10 We are us
36. t that only the top row of numbers alongside Mr Default appear initially The weights that will be used in the worksheet are the values that appear in the bottom line of numbers opposite the word Weight If you already know the weights you want to use you can bypass the whole built in procedure of voting and calculating Click on the button labeled Adopting select User Defined from the list of options and fill in the relative values you want to use in the table provided The numbers don t have to add to one because MCDM 23 will take care of normalizing the weights for you If you want to use the built in voting procedure start by assigning names to voters up to a maximum of 7 Click the Voter button to display the screen MCDM 23 User Manual Page 17 Mr Default Mr Tanimoto Mr Balcomb Ms Andresen Ms Hestnes Delete Rename Except that only Mr Default appears initially Select Mr Default and click Rename Then rename Mr Default to your name To add a new voter clicking on Add and provide a name Keep going until you have created lines for each voting participant The box above shows the situation when 4 new voters were defined leaving Mr Default unchanged Now it is time to specify preferences as a way to determine weights Each voter has two options for voting 1 The AHP method analytical hierarchy process Click the blue button to the left of the name 2 The Grading method Click the
37. ticipants you will select Average although you could select one of the other options This transfers the corresponding row of values into the Weights row These are the weights that will be used in the worksheet Click the button labeled Pie Chart to display a pie chart of the weights The pie chart graphic can be printed or copied to the clipboard CARER Lie cycle cosi 22 6 Indoor quality 25 826 Resource use 14 9 Architectural quality 19 5 Environmental loading 17 0 At this point it is a good idea to show the participants the results of their efforts Adjustments can be made by consensus using the User Defined option to record the final agreed on set of weights The procedure for determining weights for each of the sub criteria within any of the main criteria is the same as described above In the Weights menu select the main criteria by name A similar weighting screen will appear showing the corresponding sub criteria Using Paper Ballots As you will now appreciate having just been through it the process of weights is potentially quite complex and could be quite intimidating for the members of a design A MCDM 23 User Manual Page 22 team or jury Fortunately there is no need for all participants to get into the nitty gritty details of weights described in this section In fact it would be a mistake to ask them to All they need to do is vote their preferences The facilitator should make up simple paper ball
38. ts of 0 30 0 50 and 0 20 would indicate that Texture is most important carrying one half the total importance Color is next carrying 30 of the total importance and Brilliance is least importance of the three with 20 of the total importance Weights are used in a simple linear way to calculate a total score for a particular building scheme For example if Color scores a 7 on a scale of 10 Texture scores a 5 and Brilliance scores a 10 then the total weighted score is equal to 7 x 0 30 5 x 0 50 10 x 0 20 6 6 on a scale of 10 The formula is MCDM 23 User Manual Page 16 S 5 WS j l where Sis the resulting score m is the number of criteria w is the normalized weight of the criterion and s is the score for the criterion This formula is used first at the sub criteria level to obtain the criteria scores and again at the main level to calculate the final score You should probably start by setting preferences for the main criteria Click Main Criteria under Weights in the main menu to display the following Weight the main criteria x Life cycle cost Resource use Environmental Architectural Indoor quality Weighting by loadin li g quality AHP Grading _Voter_ MrDefault 0 200 0 200 0 200 0 200 Mr Tanimoto 10 261 Mr Balcomb 10 114 Ms Andresen 10 150 Ms Hestnes 10 184 Average 0 162 0 158 0 186 0 172 0 302 Adopting Weight 0 182 0 158 0 186 0 172 0 302 Help oe Pie Chant Excep
39. y the IEA Task 2 participants This might be a good starting point for the team discussions providing a jump start Life cycle cost Construction cost Annual operation cost Annual maintenance cost Resource use Annual electricity Annual fuels Annual water Construction materials Land Environmental loading CO emissions from construction Annual CO emissions from operation SO emissions from construction Annual SO emissions from operation NO emission from construction Annual NO emissions from operation Architectural quality Identity Scale proportion Integrity coherence Integration in urban context Indoor quality Air quality Lighting quality Thermal quality Acoustic quality Functionality Functionality Flexibility Maintainability Public relations value Note that this list contains main criteria and sub criteria It is important to keep the number of main criteria between 5 and 8 and that there not be more than 8 sub criteria under any of the main criteria A good procedure is to develop exhaustive list first and then refine it by 1 eliminating criteria of little importance 2 grouping those that remain into main categories 3 selecting a title for the main criteria and 4 refining the sub criteria The approach recommended is to start out wide with general strategic objectives and then narrow proceeding to specific objectives until a level is reached that is reasonable The example includes 26 total sub criteria which is a rea
Download Pdf Manuals
Related Search