Paz Arroyo

Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Select Sustainable Alternatives in the AEC Industry

Researchers and practitioners in the Architectural, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry have been incorporating sustainability (environmental, social, and economic) aspects into decision-making, e.g., designers have selected materials with sustainability in mind. Many have used multi-criteria decision-making methods, appearing to assume that all methods are equal or that the selection of a method does not matter. In this study we argue that methods matter. We see two issues pertaining to method selection. First, what are necessary characteristics of ‘viable’ methods and, correspondingly, what are characteristics that disqualify methods? Second, for those methods screened for viability, what differences between them make some more suitable than others for different applications? This paper focuses on the first issue, specifically on one characteristic that appears to us to govern viability: factors should not be weighted. We compare the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) with Choosing by Advantages (CBA), using an example and argue that AHP does not meet viability requirements.

Selecting Globally Sustainable Materials: A Case Study Using Choosing by Advantages

AbstractDesign teams must make numerous decisions in building design, including choosing materials. Lately, they have become more concerned about the social and environmental effects of their choices, in addition to the economic constraints. These concerns, in addition to the increasing offerings of construction materials and products and the engagement of more stakeholders, make decisions more complex. As decision complexity increases, so does the need to systematically use sound decision-making methods. However, in practice many decisions are made without a formal method or discussion, thereby often generating conflict and waste in the design process. Further, even if practitioners are looking for better decision-making methods, the literature does not provide enough support for them to choose the best method for this context. This research fills the literature gap and provides a systematic approach as well as practical advice for decision makers by demonstrating the application of a method, called choo...

Comparison of Weighting-Rating-Calculating, Best Value, and Choosing by Advantages for Bidder Selection

AbstractSelecting the best bidder during a tendering procedure is key to project success. However, the methods used for decision making and their implications are not well understood. This study pr...

Selecting appropriate wastewater treatment technologies using a choosing-by-advantages approach

Selecting the most sustainable wastewater treatment (WWT) technology among possible alternatives is a very complex task because the choice must integrate economic, environmental, and social criteria. Traditionally, several multi-criteria decision-making approaches have been applied, with the most often used being the analytical hierarchical process (AHP). However, AHP allows users to offset poor environmental and/or social performance with low cost. To overcome this limitation, our study examines a choosing-by-advantages (CBA) approach to rank seven WWT technologies for secondary WWT. CBA results were compared with results obtained by using the AHP approach. The rankings of WWT alternatives differed, depending on whether the CBA or AHP approach was used, which highlights the importance of the method used to support decision-making processes, particularly ones that rely on subjective interpretations by experts. This paper uses a holistic perspective to demonstrate the benefits of using the CBA approach to support a decision-making process when a group of experts must come to a consensus in selecting the most suitable WWT technology among several available.

Impact of Gender Bias on Career Development &Work Engagement in the Oaec Industry & Lean Practice

This paper examines findings from a gender bias study in the Owner, Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (OAEC) industry. By definition, a bias is a deviation from what is normal, which is defined by social norms. If different attitudes towards male vs. female co-workers exist, then one group may gain subtle yet impactful advantages in career development and work engagement. To what extent does this happen within the OAEC industry, including lean construction practice? While several industries studied the negative impact of gender bias on women in the workplace, this has not been studied in the lean construction community. Thus, this study fills the gap. Lean is based on respect for people and continuous improvement. Do these principles translate into more equitable experiences in promoting ideas, and in career development and work engagement for men and women in the OAEC industry? Regardless, if gender biases are acknowledged, then what programs exist or might exist to provide support to the disadvantaged group and level the playing field? The authors addressed these questions by administering a survey over social networks. This paper highlights initial results to raise awareness of the existence and impact of gender bias and begin exploring methods to overcome it.

Designing as a Court of Law

It is contended that legal proceedings, as they have evolved from Antiquity onwards, embrace important and effective principles for collaborative competition in pursuit of a common goal, in the considered context, justice. Seven principles contributing to this goal can be recognised: “hear both parties”, reasoned judgment, right to appeal, use of both logical and rhetorical arguments and reasoning, standardized proceedings and documents, public nature of proceedings, as well as dedicated and structured space. It is contended that the court of law can be used as a metaphor of what is happening in design. There are wishes, concepts and solutions competing against each other. For reaching the best outcome, each wish, concept or solution needs to be promoted and defended in the best possible way, and a reasoned judgment among them has to be done. Then, the question arises whether the seven principles found in legal proceedings have relevance for this collaborative, yet competitive pursuit of a common goal in design, namely the best solution in view of customer requirements. For initial exploration of the relevance and validity of the seven principles in design, a case study was undertaken. It turns out that all the seven principles are being implemented. The outcomes of the project are clearly better than in projects managed in the traditional way; although it is not possible to trace back the benefits only to the collaborative principles and related practices, their emergence, and continued use, provide solid circumstantial evidence on their efficacy.

Demonstrating the Value of an Effective Collaborative Decision-Making Process in the Design Phase

Decisions are the foundation for creating value in a project. Particularly in the early design phases, decisions form and restrict the value creation processes throughout the projects life cycle Therefore, project teams should pay attention to the decision-making process, and design it to secure maximum value creation and clear documentation. This paper shows and analyses the decision-making process in the design phase of four different projects based on four characteristics: (1) decision-making method, (2) structure of the decision-making process, (3) governance process, and (4) documentation process. Our findings demonstrate that all four characteristics are essential and need to be considered when designing the decision-making process. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that making decisions collaboratively will lead to value adding opportunities. Consequently, this paper explains how the decision-making process affects the value creation process and gives insights on how to design it in an effective manner.

Indicators for Observing Elements of Linguistic Action Perspective in Last Planner® System

ABSTRACT The implementation of the Last Planner® System increases the reliability of planning and performance levels through the management of commitments. So far, the conversations during which commitments are set at planning meetings have not been analyzed in sufficient depth. However, this analysis is essential to generate reliable commitments that reduce the uncertainty and variability of projects. The research reported in this paper moves toward this analysis by developing indicators of commitments based on the Linguistic Action Perspective, developed by Fernando Flores. Indicators of commitments (i.e. definition of roles and responsibilities, declaration of the relevance of each commitment); requests and promises (i.e. making the deadline explicit); and foundations of trust (i.e. reliability), were developed and tested based on the methodology “Design Science Research”. To verify the feasibility of measuring these indicators, a pilot test was conducted, which consisted of a Villego® Simulation applied to a group of students. Given the nature of this simulation, only part of the indicators could be verified, while the remainder is currently being verified through observation on site. The indicators that were validated are a useful tool to measure, control and improve the management of commitments in planning meetings, as they provide fast and specific feedback on these aspects, which undoubtedly enriches implementation of the Last Planner® System.

Applying Choosing by Advantages in the Public Tendering Procedure

Schöttle and Arroyo (2017) and demonstrate that the implementation of choosing by advantages (CBA) in the tendering procedure is beneficial for i) achieving transparency; ii) clarifying what an owner truly values in a project, and iii) assessing value, prior to requesting proposals and receiving responses. Furthermore, CBA allows decision-makers to separate the value of the technical proposal versus the cost of the proposal; thus, a bad technical proposal cannot be compensated by a low bid. This paper explains how CBA can be applied in the tendering procedure and also how to adjust the CBA tabular method for public procurement. The authors explain the process steps of the method and outline what the owner needs to define before requesting and evaluating proposals. Finally, based on the constructed case of Schöttle et al. (2015) the procedure is analyzed and discussed.