1、Designation: E1765 16Standard Practice forApplying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) toMultiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related toProjects, Products, and Processes1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1765; 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.INTRODUCTIONThe analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is one of a
3、 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 project,product, and process alternatives. Investment decisions
4、depend in part on how competing optionsperform with respect to nonmonetary attributes. This practice complements existing ASTM standardson building economics by incorporating the existing economic/monetary measures of worth describedin those standards into a more comprehensive standard method of eva
5、luation that includesnonmonetary (quantitative and nonquantitative) benefits and costs. The AHP is the MADA methoddescribed in this practice.2It has three significant strengths: an efficient attribute weighting process ofpairwise comparisons; hierarchical descriptions of attributes, which keep the n
6、umber of pairwisecomparisons manageable; and available software to facilitate its use.31. Scope1.1 This practice presents a procedure for calculating andinterpreting AHP scores of a projects/products/process totaloverall desirability when making capital investment decisions.3Projects include design,
7、 construction, operation, and disposalof commercial and residential buildings and other engineeredstructures.4Products include materials, components, systems,and equipment.5Processes include procurement, materialsmanagement, work flow, fabrication and assembly, qualitycontrol, and services.1.2 In ad
8、dition 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 attri-butes that pertain to the selection among project/product/process a
9、lternatives are: a construction projectss buildingalternatives whose nonmonetary attributes are location/accessibility, site security, maintainability, quality of the soundand visual environment, and image to the public and occu-pants; building products based on their economic and environ-mental per
10、formance; and sustainability-related issues for keyconstruction processes that address environmental needs, whileconsidering project safety, cost, and schedule.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is theresponsibility of the use
11、r of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.1This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E06 on Perfor-mance of Buildings and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E06.81 onBuild
12、ing Economics.Current edition approved March 1, 2016. Published March 2016. Originallyapproved in 1995. Last previous edition approved in 2011 as E1765 11. DOI:10.1520/E1765-16.2For an extensive overview of MADA methods and a detailed treatment of howto apply two MADA methods (one of which is AHP) t
13、o 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 presents a stand-alone procedure for performing anAHP analysis.In
14、 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) toMultiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings an
15、d BuildingSystems, MNL 29, ASTM, 1998.4Projects also include analytical studies that identify alternative means forachieving organizational objectives as well as research and development activitiesthat support the deployment of new products and processes.5Typical construction-related products for ea
16、ch product type are: (1) materialsconcrete; (2) componentsstructural steel members; (3) systemsheating,ventilating, and air-conditioning system; and (4) equipmentheat pump.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States12. Referenced
17、Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:6E631 Terminology of Building ConstructionsE833 Terminology of Building EconomicsE917 Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildingsand Building SystemsE964 Practice for Measuring Benefit-to-Cost and Savings-to-Investment Ratios for Buildings and Building SystemsE10
18、57 Practice for Measuring Internal Rate of Return andAdjusted Internal Rate of Return for Investments inBuildings and Building SystemsE1074 Practice for Measuring Net Benefits and Net Savingsfor Investments in Buildings and Building SystemsE1121 Practice for Measuring Payback for Investments inBuild
19、ings and Building SystemsE1480 Terminology of Facility Management (Building-Related)E1557 Classification for Building Elements and RelatedSiteworkUNIFORMAT IIE1660 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Support for Office WorkE1661 Classification for Serviceability of an Office F
20、acilityfor Meetings and Group EffectivenessE1662 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Sound and Visual EnvironmentE1663 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Typical Office Information TechnologyE1664 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityf
21、or Layout and Building FactorsE1665 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Facility ProtectionE1666 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Work Outside Normal Hours or ConditionsE1667 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Image to the Publ
22、ic and OccupantsE1668 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Amenities to Attract and Retain StaffE1669 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Location, Access and WayfindingE1670 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Management of Operati
23、ons and MaintenanceE1671 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor CleanlinessE1679 Practice for Setting the Requirements for the Service-ability of a Building or Building-Related Facility, and forDetermining What Serviceability is Provided or ProposedE1692 Classification for Servic
24、eability 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 Office Facilityfor Special Facilities and TechnologiesE1700 Classification for Serviceability of
25、an Office Facilityfor Structure and Building EnvelopeE1701 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor ManageabilityE2114 Terminology for Sustainability Relative to the Perfor-mance of BuildingsE2320 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facilityfor Thermal Environment and In
26、door Air ConditionsE2432 Guide for General Principles of Sustainability Rela-tive to Buildings2.2 Adjuncts:Discount Factor Tables Adjunct to Practices E917, E964,E1057, E1074, and E112172.3 ASTM Software Product:MNL 29 Software to Support ASTM E1765: StandardPractice forApplyingAnalytical Hierarchy
27、Process (AHP)to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Re-lated to Buildings and Building Systems63. Terminology3.1 DefinitionsFor definitions of general terms related tobuilding construction used in this practice, refer to Terminol-ogy E631; for general terms related to building economics,
28、refer to Terminology E833; and for general terms related towhole buildings and facilities, refer to Terminology E1480. Fordefinitions of general terms related to sustainability relative tothe performance of buildings, refer to Terminology E2114.4. Summary of Practice4.1 This practice helps you ident
29、ify 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 comprehensive list of selected attributes (monetaryand nonmonetary) for e
30、valuating 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 building components, and choosing among buildingmaterials. Examples of th
31、ese 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, computeattribute weights, check for consistency in pairwisecomparisons,
32、 and develop the final desirability scores of eachalternative.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 singlemeasure of desirability for project/product/process alternatives6For r
33、eferenced 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 Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.7Available from ASTM International Headquarters. Order Adjunct No.A
34、DJE091703.E1765 162with respect to multiple attributes (qualitative and quantita-tive). By contrast, life-cycle cost (Practice E917), net savings(Practice E1074), savings-to-investment ratio (Practice E964),internal rate-of-return (Practice E1057), and payback (PracticeE1121) methods all require you
35、 to put a monetary value onbenefits and costs in order to include them in a measure ofproject/product/process worth.5.2 Use AHP to evaluate a finite and generally small set ofdiscrete and predetermined options or alternatives. SpecificAHP applications are ranking and choosing among alterna-tives. Fo
36、r 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 performance for all attributes. T
37、hisis 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 alternatives whose attributes aren
38、ot 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 measured in other units, andt
39、he 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 The AHP method is well-suited for application to avariety of sustainability-related topics. Guide E2432 sta
40、teswhen applying the concept of sustainability, it is necessary toassess and balance three dissimilar, yet interrelated generalprinciplesenvironment, economic, and socialbased on thebest information available at the time the decision is made. UseAHP for pairwise comparisons among environmentalattrib
41、utes, among economic attributes, and among socialattributes, and for establishing relative importance weights foreach attribute and for each of the three general principles towhich the attributes are attached. Use the AHP-establishedrelative importance weights to select the preferred project/product
42、/process from among the competing alternatives.5.6 Potential users of AHP include architects, developers,owners, or lessors of buildings, real estate professionals(commercial and residential), facility managers, building ma-terial manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, product andprocess engineers,
43、 life cycle assessment experts, and agenciesmanaging building portfolios.6. Procedure6.1 To carry out a MADA analysis using AHP, follow thisprocedure:86.1.1 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 anal
44、ysis, 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 matrix summa
45、rizing 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 pairwise comp
46、arisons, 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 Confirm th
47、at 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 theoretically infini
48、te 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 not a MADAp
49、roblem.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 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 ne
