A Decision Framework for the

A Decision Framework for theA Decision Framework for the

Briefing of AEC AlternativesBriefing of AEC Alternatives

““The Blue Sky Ideas” The Blue Sky Ideas” by Calvin Kamby Calvin Kam

CEE320a CIFE Seminar—October 28, 2002CEE320a CIFE Seminar—October 28, 2002

Research ProcessResearch Process

(Fischer and Kunz)(Fischer and Kunz)

Executive SummaryExecutive Summary

Context:Context: Architecture/Engineering/Construction’s decision-Architecture/Engineering/Construction’s decision-making process—when alternatives are evaluated with the making process—when alternatives are evaluated with the highest influence levelhighest influence level

Process:Process: synthesis –>synthesis –> briefingbriefing –> analysis –> decision –> analysis –> decision

Stakeholders:Stakeholders:

(1) facilitators (architects, planners, owner’s rep., …) (1) facilitators (architects, planners, owner’s rep., …)

(2) consultants (designers, engineers, subcontractors, …)(2) consultants (designers, engineers, subcontractors, …)

(3) decision makers (clients, end-users, …)(3) decision makers (clients, end-users, …)

Problem:Problem:

(1) Since clients can only manage a limited amount of technical (1) Since clients can only manage a limited amount of technical decision variables simultaneously, facilitators often decision variables simultaneously, facilitators often lock-in micro-lock-in micro-alternatives prematurelyalternatives prematurely during the synthesis stage. during the synthesis stage.

(2) Individuals’ moderating skills and experience often (2) Individuals’ moderating skills and experience often skew the skew the comprehension and focuscomprehension and focus of the decision makers. of the decision makers.


Points of Departure:Points of Departure: decision analysis theories, project decision analysis theories, project management theories, AEC decision making, the interactive management theories, AEC decision making, the interactive workspace, client briefingworkspace, client briefing

Research Proposal:Research Proposal:

Develop a decision framework for the briefing of AEC capital Develop a decision framework for the briefing of AEC capital alternatives in the interactive workspace (iRoom) to:alternatives in the interactive workspace (iRoom) to:

(1) (1) integrate alternativesintegrate alternatives in a decision in a decision networknetwork—delaying the lock-—delaying the lock-in in

(2) (2) balance cross-disciplinary technical issuesbalance cross-disciplinary technical issues with common with common performance performance metrics: time, cost, and riskmetrics: time, cost, and risk

Validation Criteria:Validation Criteria:

(1) Efficiency enabled by decision focus and the common metrics(1) Efficiency enabled by decision focus and the common metrics

(2) cross-disciplinary integration(2) cross-disciplinary integration

(3) numbers of alternatives(3) numbers of alternatives

(4) Value of creativity(4) Value of creativity

What is a decision?What is a decision?

How does one know if the decision-makingHow does one know if the decision-making

process is good or bad? process is good or bad?

What about the outcome?What about the outcome?

or AEC decision making?or AEC decision making?

BackgroundBackground

Decisions and AlternativesDecisions and Alternatives

Decision:Decision: involves allocation of resources; involves allocation of resources;

good decision analysis may not yield good outcomesgood decision analysis may not yield good outcomes

Decision Basis:Decision Basis:

(1) Creative Alternatives (1) Creative Alternatives

(premature decision cages without multilateral considerations)(premature decision cages without multilateral considerations)

(2) Useful Information(2) Useful Information

(disperse and embedded)(disperse and embedded)

(3) Clear Preference and Value(3) Clear Preference and Value

(not public/explicit, may be different among decision makers)(not public/explicit, may be different among decision makers)

In AEC context:In AEC context:

(1) Strategic Decisions (e.g., go/no-go, schematic design alternatives)(1) Strategic Decisions (e.g., go/no-go, schematic design alternatives)

(2) Managing Operations (e.g., construction planning and methods)(2) Managing Operations (e.g., construction planning and methods)

(Howard)(Howard)

Cost of DecisionCost of Decision

The level of influence over the life cycle of a capital facilityThe level of influence over the life cycle of a capital facility

Decision ImpactDecision Impact

TimeTime

HighHigh

LowLow

(Paulson)

The process that leads to a decision in AECThe process that leads to a decision in AEC

How do we compare differentHow do we compare different

project alternatives today?project alternatives today?

Conventional PracticeConventional Practice

The ProcessThe Process

Synthesis:Synthesis: technical teams work with discipline-specific technical teams work with discipline-specific applications,applications, come up with micro-alternatives for come up with micro-alternatives for facilitators to facilitators to filter into project alternatives—filter into project alternatives—micro decisions are mademicro decisions are made

Briefing:Briefing: facilitators present the alternatives to the decision-facilitators present the alternatives to the decision-makers makers with pertinent issues; the with pertinent issues; the comprehension stage that comprehension stage that involves involves description, explanation, and evaluationdescription, explanation, and evaluation (against (against functional requirements) functional requirements)

Analysis:Analysis: the decision makers further evaluate the relative the decision makers further evaluate the relative performance of the alternatives, come up with performance of the alternatives, come up with what-if what-if

scenarios for scenarios for predictionprediction and and re-evaluationre-evaluation

Tools and Means: Tools and Means: presentation tools, individuals’ moderating presentation tools, individuals’ moderating skills skills and project experienceand project experience

(Liston)(Liston)

DESCRIPTIVE (40%)

EXPLANATIVE (20%)

PREDICTIVE (10%)

EVALUATIVE (30%)

Case Study 1—Design Alternatives for Case Study 1—Design Alternatives for Strategic Decisions in the Helsinki University of Strategic Decisions in the Helsinki University of

TechnologyTechnology

(shows the skewing of decision focus and (shows the skewing of decision focus and

the lack of multi-lateral comprehension)the lack of multi-lateral comprehension)


• The owner held a design review meeting

• Project architect presented two architectural alternatives: skylight and strip-windows

• Owner representative moderated the meeting and the decision-making process

• During conceptual design phase, building owners make major decisions that have life-cycle influences on their capital facilities

• Building owners hire owner representatives and architects, who coordinate the consultants

Analyses of today’s practices

Micro Focus(e.g., architectural domain specific)

Macro Focus(e.g., balancing architectural, structural, MEP,

construction, and life-cycle interests)

Qualitative Factors(e.g., aesthetics, risks)

Quantitative Factors(e.g., cost)

• The decision makers were not able to mentally relate all information from the many binders and report

• The discussion focused on spatial configurations and architectural features

• Architects drive the meetings where renderings and models surround decision-makers

• Without technical AEC background, the clients are more attentive to visual materials

• Rather than choosing between two set alternatives, the owner preferred a hybrid solution

• The team present estimated the difference in cost by adding the component costs from the available cost estimate proposal

• The owners found the cost difference acceptable and went ahead with the hybrid design

• As clients better comprehend the project, they come up with suggestions or “what if” questions

• Available information is discipline-specific, requires decision-makers to mentally synthesize it

Architectural

Construction Cost

Structural

Building Systems

Operation andMaintenance

Motivation for my Research

The hybrid design revoked mechanical and structural assumptions and led to:

(1) higher thermal loads>larger duct sections>interstitial conflicts

(2) budget ceiling led to cheaper but deeper prefabricated structural system>rework, extra coordination, and change order at the field

(3) higher thermal loads>increase operation cost

(4) less efficient building systems>energy inefficiency>higher cost and adverse impacts

• Ad hoc evaluation and assessment based on the architect’s/owner representative’s technical and interpersonal experiences

• There is no formal mechanism or tool to visualize the ripple effects of a project alternative

Motivation for my Research

Case Study 2—Acceleration Alternatives forCase Study 2—Acceleration Alternatives for

Managing Operations in the Bay Street ProjectManaging Operations in the Bay Street Project

To what degree can decision focus be To what degree can decision focus be achieved?achieved?

(shows the dispersal of decision variables and(shows the dispersal of decision variables and

the premature “caging” of micro-alternatives)the premature “caging” of micro-alternatives)

I-Room Practice TodayI-Room Practice Today

Bay Street Case StudyBay Street Case Study

• retail complex that include theaters, shops, and a parking structure

• fast-track construction—target 2002 Thanksgiving and Christmas season

• tight site wheresingle crew per tradewas introduced with little schedule slack

AP

ARAT

The DelayThe Delay

2 Month Delay -> 2 subs provided acceleration proposals2 Month Delay -> 2 subs provided acceleration proposalsProvided unit rates information, brainstormed for acceleration meansProvided unit rates information, brainstormed for acceleration means

GC synthesized and presented 3 cases to the owner’s GC synthesized and presented 3 cases to the owner’s representative in an OAC meetingrepresentative in an OAC meeting

owner required theater and bookstore to open “at all expenses”owner required theater and bookstore to open “at all expenses”

Conventional PracticeConventional PracticeAgree on action items, Dismiss meeting -> further analyses, Agree on action items, Dismiss meeting -> further analyses,

Generate Proposal -> Meet again Generate Proposal -> Meet again (setback: time lost, not many alternatives analyzed) (setback: time lost, not many alternatives analyzed)

Today iRoom PracticeToday iRoom PracticeSupports semi-live analyses -> run alternatives -> summarize in Supports semi-live analyses -> run alternatives -> summarize in

table formtable form(setback: decision factors are disperse, semi-live comparison in (setback: decision factors are disperse, semi-live comparison in

static views, flatten decision structure) static views, flatten decision structure)

I-Room DemoI-Room Demo

(1) “Baseline” MS Project Schedule and Time Controller

(2) Time Controller


(1) “Baseline” 4D Model (Perspective View)

(2) “Baseline” 4D Model (Perspective View)


(1) “Baseline” 4D Model (Top View)

(2) “Delay” 4D Model (Perspective View)

I-Room Illustration—MS ProjectI-Room Illustration—MS Project

I-Room Illustration—SimVisionI-Room Illustration—SimVision

I-Room Illustration—MS ExcelI-Room Illustration—MS Excel

The DelayThe Delay

2 Month Delay -> 2 subs provided acceleration proposals2 Month Delay -> 2 subs provided acceleration proposalsProvided unit rates information, brainstormed for acceleration meansProvided unit rates information, brainstormed for acceleration means

GC synthesized and presented 3 cases to the owner’s GC synthesized and presented 3 cases to the owner’s representative in an OAC meetingrepresentative in an OAC meeting

owner required theater and bookstore to open “at all expenses”owner required theater and bookstore to open “at all expenses”

Conventional PracticeConventional PracticeAgree on action items, Dismiss meeting -> further analyses, Agree on action items, Dismiss meeting -> further analyses,

Generate Proposal -> Meet again Generate Proposal -> Meet again (setback: time lost, not many alternatives analyzed) (setback: time lost, not many alternatives analyzed)

Today iRoom PracticeToday iRoom PracticeSupports semi-live analyses -> run alternatives -> summarize in Supports semi-live analyses -> run alternatives -> summarize in

table formtable form(setback: decision factors are disperse, semi-live comparison in (setback: decision factors are disperse, semi-live comparison in

static views, flatten decision structure) static views, flatten decision structure)

Dispersal of Decision VariablesDispersal of Decision Variables

Limitation of Today’s I-RoomLimitation of Today’s I-Room

Decision factors are dispersed…Decision factors are dispersed…across applications (MSP, 4D, SimVision, Excel), cases (4 cases), tabs across applications (MSP, 4D, SimVision, Excel), cases (4 cases), tabs

(communication risk, schedule growth, etc.), and fields (spreadsheet, (communication risk, schedule growth, etc.), and fields (spreadsheet, MSP)MSP)

Current decision support views…Current decision support views…Views (SV dashboard/ppt/excel) are staticViews (SV dashboard/ppt/excel) are static

Fields/Cells are difficult to comprehendFields/Cells are difficult to comprehend

Flatten the decision tree:Flatten the decision tree:

• hinder creative generation of solutionshinder creative generation of solutions

• alternatives may not be mutually exclusivealternatives may not be mutually exclusive

Simultaneous handling of decision variables…Simultaneous handling of decision variables…7 +/- 2 but usually refer to same type of information (e.g., 7 numbers)7 +/- 2 but usually refer to same type of information (e.g., 7 numbers)

Analysis rationales are often omitted or embedded…Analysis rationales are often omitted or embedded…Hinder subsequent analyses (d.e.e.p.) and generation of solutionsHinder subsequent analyses (d.e.e.p.) and generation of solutions

Static Views;Static Views;Flatten Decision StructuresFlatten Decision Structures

Activity Milestone Baseline DelayConcrete

ExpeditionSteel

ExpeditionHybrid

Expedition

Overall Project 11/1/2002 10/30/2002 1/8/2003 12/18/2002 12/11/2002 11/19/20022 -68 -47 -40 -18

Parking Turnover 8/1/2002 7/23/2002 9/24/2002 8/22/2002 9/24/2002 8/22/20029 -54 -21 -54 -21

Bookstore Turnover 10/1/2002 9/19/2002 11/25/2002 11/5/2002 10/29/2002 10/9/200212 -55 -35 -28 -8

Retail Turnover 10/15/2002 10/2/2002 12/10/2002 11/18/2002 11/11/2002 10/22/200213 -56 -34 -27 -7

Cinema Turnover 10/15/2002 10/10/2002 12/11/2002 11/12/2002 11/20/2002 10/24/20025 -57 -28 -36 -9

Time

Activity Budget Baseline DelayConcrete

ExpeditionSteel

Expedition

Overall Project 14,000,000$ 13,891,194$ 13,891,194$ 14,097,098$ 14,638,523$ 14,844,427$ 99.22% 99.22% 100.69% 104.56% 106.03%

Parking Turnover 3,250,000$ 3,211,015$ 3,211,015$ 3,218,878$ 3,211,015$ 3,218,878$ 98.80% 98.80% 99.04% 98.80% 99.04%

Bookstore Turnover 3,500,000$ 3,467,287$ 3,467,287$ 3,472,125$ 3,752,862$ 3,757,700$ 99.07% 99.07% 99.20% 107.22% 107.36%

Retail Turnover 3,500,000$ 3,467,287$ 3,467,287$ 3,472,125$ 3,752,862$ 3,757,700$ 99.07% 99.07% 99.20% 107.22% 107.36%

Cinema Turnover 7,250,000$ 7,212,892$ 7,212,892$ 7,406,095$ 7,674,646$ 7,867,849$ 99.49% 99.49% 102.15% 105.86% 108.52%

Cost

What are the limitations of conventional What are the limitations of conventional practice?practice?

of today’s iRoom practice?of today’s iRoom practice?

(decision basis and process)(decision basis and process)

Intuition: Intuition: Alternatives in a decision network,Alternatives in a decision network,

Common Metric—time, cost, and riskCommon Metric—time, cost, and risk

What is the motivation for my workWhat is the motivation for my work

and future research?and future research?

IntuitionIntuition

Decision Process

Decision Basis Conventional Practice iRoom Today

BriefingDescriptionExplanationEvaluation (conformity)

Useful informationClear preference and value

discipline-specific decision factorsno PPO linkageauthor's verbal skills and presence to present and explainembedded functional requirementsno documentation of rationalesmental synthesis of project infocaging decisions

1st degree of focus--source+displaydifferent sources of information/embedded in cases/tabs/files/etc.no live alternative synthesischaotic windows, apps, tabspreset Excel/PPT alternativesstatic view, semi-livecaging decisionsno documentation of rationalesflatten decision structures

AnalysisPrediction (what if)Evaluation (alternatives)

Clear preference and valueCreative alternative

ad-hoc analysisno documentation of rationalesFacilitator's skillsfew alternatives evaluatedno real time predictionspros and cons and bullets do not communicate decision rationale and structure (qualitative only)

changes need to be redoneno documentation of rationales

Decision

Clarity of actionhigh quality actional thought

time lost between meetings

Decision process

Limitation of conventional andtoday iRoom practice

Motivation for my research and future work

Briefing Description Explanation Evaluation (conformity)

Description

disperse and often inadequate information define focus of briefing and a decision frame

lost focus and big picture provide a visual enhancement for better briefing

Explanation

flat decision structure support visualization of decision network and alternatives

microscopic decision factors and application-dependent focus

address cross-disciplinary decision factors (both qualitative and quantitative)

no/semi PPO linkage provide integrated linkages among PPO

Evaluation (conformity)

caged decisions, without multilateral considerationconsider ripple consequences and risk identification in a network context

no explicit functional requirements or documentation of decision rationale

support inclusion of preference and functional requirements

no specific focus on risk categorize risk for comparing alternatives

Analysis Prediction (what if) Evaluation (alternatives)

not public, not explicit; goals, preferences, and priorities may be different across team members

clarify actions and mitigate risk, capture rationales

caged alternative, limited what-if, not live delay the decision cage of alternatives

ad-hoc analysis formal analysis of alternatives

Leading To

Decision biased to best-presented discipline

provide second degree of focus on content, information, and decision network for balanced and informative discussion

not easily understandable and hence, non-AEC professionals are reactive, no common vocabulary, tool, or formal process to provide feedback

provide a briefing framework and establish common vocabulary

Decision Making: AEC Decision Making

Decision AnalysisDecision AnalysisApplication of DA in AEC

Content: Macro Integration

Micro Analysis

Project ManagementProject ManagementProcess: Interactive Workspace

Client BriefingInformation Visualization

Tradeoff AnalysisCapturing Client Requirements

Points of Departure and Points of Departure and TheoriesTheories

Points of DeparturePoints of Departure

Decision AnalysisDecision AnalysisRelevance of decision basis and decision frames [Howard]Relevance of decision basis and decision frames [Howard]

Analyze prior application in AEC [Blum, Giarrusso, et. al.]Analyze prior application in AEC [Blum, Giarrusso, et. al.]

Applicability of a decision tree and the stochastic approachApplicability of a decision tree and the stochastic approach

Project ManagementProject ManagementTriple Constraint—encourage discussion and conveyance of customer’s Triple Constraint—encourage discussion and conveyance of customer’s

emphasis [Rosenau] emphasis [Rosenau]

Network DiagramNetwork Diagram

Time-Cost Trade-off AnalysisTime-Cost Trade-off Analysis

CIFE’s iRoom-to-go and Application SuiteCIFE’s iRoom-to-go and Application SuiteiRoom infrastructureiRoom infrastructure

CIFE applicationsCIFE applications

Theories and Prior WorkTheories and Prior Work

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis TheoriesMultiple Criteria Decision Analysis TheoriesDecision structuring, cognitive map, value tree, goal programming, Decision structuring, cognitive map, value tree, goal programming,

outranking [Belton, Stewart]outranking [Belton, Stewart]

Visualization and HCI ConceptsVisualization and HCI Concepts““Information overload”, value of visual presentation for complex informationInformation overload”, value of visual presentation for complex information

[Tufte, Shneiderman, Wurman] [Tufte, Shneiderman, Wurman]

Liston’s Visualization TechniquesListon’s Visualization TechniquesHighlight/Visual approach, D.E.P.E. metrics for evaluating decision-making tasks Highlight/Visual approach, D.E.P.E. metrics for evaluating decision-making tasks

Divita’s Facility Alternative Creation Tool, Circle Integration WorkDivita’s Facility Alternative Creation Tool, Circle Integration Workreal-time plan, execute, and re-plan PPP variables through “observe” and real-time plan, execute, and re-plan PPP variables through “observe” and

““predict” within a preset ontology and relations predict” within a preset ontology and relations

Client briefing; Capture client requirements; Level of influence,Client briefing; Capture client requirements; Level of influence,Decision cage, CRPM (Client Requirements Processing Model), Triple constraints Decision cage, CRPM (Client Requirements Processing Model), Triple constraints

[Barrett, Kamara][Barrett, Kamara]

Research Questions, Research Questions, Tasks, and ModelTasks, and Model

How to integrate and visualize cross-disciplinary How to integrate and visualize cross-disciplinary decision factors for the briefing of AEC capital decision factors for the briefing of AEC capital

alternatives?alternatives?

How to synthesize the product, process, and organization views How to synthesize the product, process, and organization views fromfrom

different alternatives into a balanced decision view?different alternatives into a balanced decision view?

How to brief the impact of decision alternatives in time-cost-risk How to brief the impact of decision alternatives in time-cost-risk parameters?parameters?

How to formalize risk for briefing alternatives in strategic decisionHow to formalize risk for briefing alternatives in strategic decisionand managing operation contexts?and managing operation contexts?

How does visual enhancement contribute toHow does visual enhancement contribute toAEC briefing of decision alternatives?AEC briefing of decision alternatives?

Research Question

Intuition and Objective Research TasksPrototype Implementation--functionality (F), Property (P)

How

to provide the second degree of focus—on the briefing of content, information, and decision network of project alternatives

design a decision-support view and formalize a briefing (describe-explain-evaluate) framework

to define decision frames

to integrate

with macro and micro balance

through a central data linkage that controls iRoom applications

define data format and source, possibly through XML

through hierarchy and sequential network

expand and contract Decision Objects’ (DO) parents and children based on chosen alternatives (F)

Macro= executive view, Micro= iRoom applications for micro briefing

and visualize

with a visual support for decision network and alternatives

represent decision structure, rationale, constraints, and alternatives in decision network

show decision structure/graphs (F), assignments, and rationales (P)

show coordination and successor decision objects and alternative children (P)

with a visual enhancement for better briefing

through interactivity and visual properties

scale, color boxes and lines based on cost, risk (F)

cross-disciplinarydecision factors


organize data entries from applications from different disciplines

scenario cost and duration (quan), risk (qual), e.g., =sum of alternative+object+delta (P)

provide integrated linkages among product, process, and organization

hold shots/info/linkage to ADT, 4D, SV, MSP, Excel (P)

delay the decision cage of alternatives for analysis

for the briefing*of AEC capital alternativesstrategic decisions (free PPO, e.g., design)managing operations (fixed product, e.g., CM)


time-cost-risk-networkrelative vs. absolute, swappable (w/ or w/rt %) (F)

support explicit inclusion of preference and functional requirements

update decision object properties based on alternatives chosen (F)

categorize risk for comparing alternatives

names, budget, milestones—ES, EF (P)

consider ripple consequences and risk identification in a network context

live feedback of time/cost/risk performances based on alternatives

*and analysis (scoped out as suggested by John)

formalize analysis of alternatives

tradeoff time-cost-risk in decision network, manipulate/relax constraints

lock and unlock decision objects (F)

clarify actions and mitigate risk

capture rationale and requirements explicitly

document rationale, save scenario, sort action and risk according to team (F)

delay the decision cage of alternatives

quick what ifranking, add, change alternatives and values, macro/micro inputs (F)

ADT 4D MSP SimVisionExcel Cost Excelon Table Tree

Decision-Support Database

Level of Detail 1000s 1000s 860 60 100s 1000s 1000s 1000s10-20 at top

level

3D geometry Yes Yes Link

Name--component Yes Yes Yes Yes (4D) Link

Name--activity Yes Yes Yes Yes (4D) Yes Yes

Base Cost and Budget possible possible YesYes (comp) Yes

Milestone Dates (Finishes and ES) Yes Yes Yes Yes

Base Duration Yes Yes Yes ES,EF (4D) Yes

Base Risk (Qualitative) Yes Yes (SV) Yes (Qual)

Show alternative children Yes

Show successor DO's+their altern. Children Yes

Coordination with Yes Link

Assignment Resources Yes Yes (SV) Link

4D links Yes Link

Research Question


How




to integrate







and visualize

































$ 206K (1.5%)

Risk Issues

Theater Steel2x bolt-up and welding 2x fireproofing overtime on erection overtime on decking

Time

$ 206K (1.5%)

RiskHazardous DelayTime Impact=68 days

Retail TO

Day= -27 (+41) $

2,264K

Parking TO

Day=$ K

Theater Interior Theater ExteriorDay= -40 (+29)

$ 3,386K

Parking Concrete Parking Interior Parking ExteriorDay= -40 (+29)

$ 3,386K

Concrete L1-3

Day= -40 (+29) $

3,386K

Piles and Caps Slab-on-Grade

Day= -40 (+29) $

3,386K

Retail Steel2x bolt-up and welding 2x fireproofing overtime on erection overtime on decking

Time

$ 206K (1.5%)

Risk

Bookstore TO

Day= -28 (+40) $ 970K

Theater TO

Day= -36 (+32) $ 6,906K

Retail Interior Retail Exterior

Day= -40 (+29) $

3,386K

Single crew | Double crew on bolt-up and welding

Single crew | Double crew on fireproofing

No overtime | Overtime on erection

No overtime | Overtime on decking

Cost ImpactTime Impact Alternatives

on bolt-up and welding

on fireproofing

on erection

on decking


on fireproofing

on erection

on decking


on fireproofing

on erection

on decking

Research Question


How




to integrate







and visualize















for the briefing*of AEC capital alternativesstrategic decisions managing operations









*and analysisformalize analysis of alternatives








$ 206K (1.5%)

Risk Issues


Time

$ 206K (1.5%)

Risk

Parking TO

Day=$ K


$ 3,386K


$ 3,386K


Time

$ 206K (1.5%)

Risk

Theater TO

Day= -36 (+32) $ 6,906K


















1

23-4

5

6

7

8 8

9

10

11

Validation Plan and Validation Plan and ContributionContribution

Again, the Engineering Problems are:

1) Dispersal of disciplinary information and the lack of multilateral balances in ad-hoc briefings adversely skew

decision foci.

2) Premature “caging” of decision alternatives limit the effectiveness in the briefing and analysis of capital

alternatives.

Contribution Validation Plan Validation in the Context of Bay Street Example

A decision focus and an integrated framework that balances cross-disciplinary technical issues in a network diagram with common performance metrics—time, cost, and risk

Efficiency enabled by decision focus and time-cost-risk metrics (quantitative)The total time needed to satisfactorily complete briefing tasks and commence analysis tasks, and their relative distribution.

Record how long it takes the test participants, with and without the research model, to satisfactorily answer the descriptive, explanative, and evaluative questions:Example 1: Across the acceleration cases, which single change is the most effective timewise? in time saved per additional dollar spent? most risky? (…how?, why?) Example 2: Do the steel, concrete, and hybrid alternatives conform to respective tenants’ budgets and intermediate milestone dates?

Cross-disciplinary IntegrationThe number (quantitative) and value (qualitative) of referencing PPO applications associated with decision alternatives

In evaluating steel erection alternative (as planned vs. overtime), can the test participants, through the risk parameter and the PPO linkage, identify the cross-disciplinary ramifications of the acceleration?For example, steel fabrication impact, designer’s information handling, productivity rate, workspace conflicts with concrete trade, material access/laid down, etc.

An integration of decision alternatives in a network diagram to delay the “decision cage”

Numbers of alternatives (quantitative)The number of alternative solutions and combinations generated

Document and compare the range of alternatives (from concrete and steel subs) and relevant combinations (different hybrid cases) that decision facilitators are able to prepare, and the decision makers will be able to comprehend and analyze.

Creativity value (qualitative)The value of having live performance feedback of the chosen alternatives from the macro decision network

Observe and assess the validity of the “decaging” mechanism and the live time-cost feedback in assisting decision makers to understand and reason the impacts of the decisions, identifying risk issues, and ultimately, enhance the analysis--new predictions, and re-evaluation.

Thank You!Thank You!

Questions and DiscussionsQuestions and Discussions

Pluses and DeltasPluses and Deltas


Context:Context: Architecture/Engineering/Construction’s decision-Architecture/Engineering/Construction’s decision-making process—when alternatives are evaluated with the making process—when alternatives are evaluated with the highest influence levelhighest influence level

Process:Process: synthesis –>synthesis –> briefingbriefing –> analysis –> decision –> analysis –> decision

Stakeholders:Stakeholders:

(1) facilitators (architects, planners, owner’s rep., …) (1) facilitators (architects, planners, owner’s rep., …)

(2) consultants (designers, engineers, subcontractors, …)(2) consultants (designers, engineers, subcontractors, …)

(3) decision makers (clients, end-users, …)(3) decision makers (clients, end-users, …)

Problem:Problem:

(1) Since clients can only manage a limited amount of technical (1) Since clients can only manage a limited amount of technical decision variables simultaneously, facilitators often decision variables simultaneously, facilitators often lock-in micro-lock-in micro-alternatives prematurelyalternatives prematurely during the synthesis stage. during the synthesis stage.

(2) Individuals’ moderating skills and experience often (2) Individuals’ moderating skills and experience often skew the skew the comprehension and focuscomprehension and focus of the decision makers. of the decision makers.


Points of Departure:Points of Departure: decision analysis theories, project decision analysis theories, project management theories, AEC decision making, the interactive management theories, AEC decision making, the interactive workspace, client briefingworkspace, client briefing

Research Proposal:Research Proposal:

Develop a decision framework for the briefing of AEC capital Develop a decision framework for the briefing of AEC capital alternatives in the interactive workspace (iRoom) to:alternatives in the interactive workspace (iRoom) to:

(1) (1) integrate alternativesintegrate alternatives in a decision in a decision networknetwork—delaying the lock-—delaying the lock-in in

(2) (2) balance cross-disciplinary technical issuesbalance cross-disciplinary technical issues with common with common performance performance metrics: time, cost, and riskmetrics: time, cost, and risk

Validation Criteria:Validation Criteria:

(1) Efficiency enabled by decision focus and the common metrics(1) Efficiency enabled by decision focus and the common metrics

(2) cross-disciplinary integration(2) cross-disciplinary integration

(3) numbers of alternatives(3) numbers of alternatives

(4) Value of creativity(4) Value of creativity

Research QuestionsResearch Questions

How to synthesize product/process/organization (PPO) How to synthesize product/process/organization (PPO) alternatives and their associated parameters (time, cost, alternatives and their associated parameters (time, cost,

and risk-issue) and risk-issue) in a decision network?in a decision network?

How to formalize the relationships to support the inclusion ofPPO alternatives in a network diagram?

How to integrate PPO alternatives and the above set of relationships

with their time, cost, and risk-issue variables?

Research MethodResearch Method

through a set ofthrough a set of relationships relationships for alternativesfor alternatives

through through “decision objects”“decision objects”—an object oriented modeling —an object oriented modeling approachapproach


Tasks:Tasks:1) Inputting an alternative—the representation

2) Linking disciplinary decision parameters—PPO synthesis

3) Briefing—explaining the alternatives

4) Briefing—evaluating against the decision criteria

5) Analysis—what if? Predictions

Limitations:Limitations:1) Case-specific, intra-disciplinary applications

2) Locking micro-alternatives and fixing temporal relationships

3) No formal query of alternatives or documentation of rationale

4) High-level evaluation with no formal requirement record

5) Sequential, restart over

Process Diagram—ConventionalProcess Diagram—Conventional

1) isolated discrete alternatives;2) discontinuation from predictions to synthesis,

and from synthesis to new what-if’s3) high-level evaluation of project alternatives

Process Diagram—Proposed WorkProcess Diagram—Proposed Work

An integrated approach for the synthesis, briefing, and analysis of predictions and alternatives


Tasks:Tasks:1) Inputting an alternative—the representation

Limitations:Limitations:1) Case-specific, intra-disciplinary applications

Implementation Tasks—Model Input:Implementation Tasks—Model Input:

• Importing/Inputting parameters of an independent decision object

• Importing/Inputting alternative decision objects for PPO—products, tasks, and teams

Discrete alternatives are input separately into different cases, tabs, files…

Normal Erectionduration impact 0Dcost impact $0risk lowrationalelinkage to PPOrelationship w/ DO

Nilrelationship children 1

OT in Erectionduration impact -10Dcost impact $23,760risk high-supply chainrationalelinkage to PPOrelationship w/ DOrelationship children 1 Nil

Retail Steelrelationship w/ DO Successor of Parking Concrete (Impeding) and Slab-on-Grade (Enabling)

Predecessor of Exterior Work (Enabling)duration =68D+Children duration impactscost =$657k+Children cost impactsrisk list of base risk + risk from alternativerationalelinkage to PPO

Input decision parameters (time, cost, risk issues) into a central database


Tasks:Tasks:

2) Linking disciplinary decision parameters—PPO synthesis

Limitations:Limitations:2) Locking micro-alternatives, losing expedition rationale

Implementation Tasks—Model Input:Implementation Tasks—Model Input:

• Assign “Parent” and “Sibling” relationships

• Assign “Temporal” relationships

• Reference micro-predictions: Link relevant 4D (components and activities), SimVision (activities, organizations), MS Project (activity ID), Cost (activity, component) Placeholder for SimVision results, renderings, shots, text, documents

Synthesizing micro-predictions requires locking-in of alternatives,

and fixation of temporal alternatives

Assign relationships for alternatives and decision objects,

Reference PPO “micro-predictions”

Parking Concrete L1-2relationship w/ DO Successor of Slab on Grade (Enabling)

Predecessor of Retail Steel (Impeding), Parking Concrete L3-5 (Enabling)duration =116D+Children duration impactscost =$733k+Children cost impactsrisk list of base risk + risk from alternativerationalelinkage to PPO

Impeding Relationship OT in Reinforcement Normal Reinforcementrelationship w/ DO parking FS retail steel duration impact -13D duration impact 0D

duration impact 0 cost impact 14,040$ cost impact $0cost 0 risk high-productivity, rework risk lowrisk Low rationale rationale

rationale concrete contract-formwork reason linkage to PPO linkage to PPOlinkage to PPO 4D (specific date and components) relationship w/ DO relationship w/ DO



OT in Erection Normal Erectionduration impact -10D duration impact 0Dcost impact $23,760 cost impact $0risk high-supply chain risk lowrationale rationalelinkage to PPO linkage to PPOrelationship w/ DO relationship w/ DO

3x Welding 2x Weldingduration impact -7D duration impact -5Dcost impact $32,400 cost impact $16,200risk high-coordination,quality risk medium-spatial and resourcesrationale rationalelinkage to PPO linkage to PPOrelationship w/ DO relationship w/ DO

relationship children 1


relationship children 1 relationship children 1Nil


relationship children 1 relationship children 1

Nil relationship children 1

Sibling Relationship



Parent Relationship

Parent Relationship

Parent RelationshipTemporal Relationship


Tasks:Tasks:

3) Briefing—explaining the alternatives

Limitations:Limitations:3) No formal query of alternatives or documentation of rationales

Implementation Tasks—Model Output and Support:Implementation Tasks—Model Output and Support:

• Hierarchical extensibility to balance between macro (executive view) and micro alternatives

• Support query of micro-predictions

Synthesizing micro-predictions requires locking-in of alternatives,

and fixation of temporal alternatives

Assign relationships for alternatives and decision objects,

Reference PPO “micro-predictions”

Parking Concrete L1-2relationship w/ DO Successor of Slab on Grade (Enabling)

Predecessor of Retail Steel (Impeding), Parking Concrete L3-5 (Enabling)duration =116D+Children duration impactscost =$733k+Children cost impactsrisk list of base risk + risk from alternativerationalelinkage to PPO

Impeding Relationship OT in Reinforcement Normal Reinforcementrelationship w/ DO parking FS retail steel duration impact -13D duration impact 0D

duration impact 0 cost impact 14,040$ cost impact $0cost 0 risk high-productivity, rework risk lowrisk Low rationale rationale

rationale concrete contract-formwork reason linkage to PPO linkage to PPOlinkage to PPO 4D (specific date and components) relationship w/ DO relationship w/ DO



OT in Erection Normal Erectionduration impact -10D duration impact 0Dcost impact $23,760 cost impact $0risk high-supply chain risk lowrationale rationalelinkage to PPO linkage to PPOrelationship w/ DO relationship w/ DO

3x Welding 2x Weldingduration impact -7D duration impact -5Dcost impact $32,400 cost impact $16,200risk high-coordination,quality risk medium-spatial and resourcesrationale rationalelinkage to PPO linkage to PPOrelationship w/ DO relationship w/ DO



relationship children 1 relationship children 1Nil


relationship children 1 relationship children 1

Nil relationship children 1




Parent Relationship

Parent Relationship

Parent RelationshipTemporal Relationship

Synthesis Stage

Input: domain-specific proposals steel (s) and concrete (c) subs for 2 proposals +hybrid case

1. decision objects (DO’s)–Issues to be discussed DO’s—delay, foundation work (c), slab-on-grade (c), theater parking (c), parking structure (c), theater steel (s), retail int/ext work, theater int/ext work

2. decision relationship concrete parking and retail steel has a pred/sucessor constraint (impeding?), SOG has an (enabling?) constraint for theater parking

3. Alternatives single/double crew on boltup/welding, fireproofing, grade beams; overtime/no-OT on steel erection, decking, rebar, additional/as-planned formwork

4. Cost-Time-Risk for alternatives and DO’s predicted cost=$206k for steel and duration=35d for cinema steel, and 49d for retail steel acceleration

5. PPO Linkage/placeholders the live 4D model with the specific time frame

6. Functional Requirements October turnover date, budget

$ 206K (1.5%)

Risk Issues


Time

$ 206K (1.5%)

RiskHazardous DelayTime Impact=68 days

Retail TO

Day= -27 (+41) $

2,264K

Parking TO

Day=$ K


$ 3,386K


$ 3,386K

Concrete L1-3

Day= -40 (+29) $

3,386K

Piles and Caps Slab-on-Grade

Day= -40 (+29) $

3,386K


Time

$ 206K (1.5%)

Risk

Bookstore TO

Day= -28 (+40) $ 970K

Theater TO

Day= -36 (+32) $ 6,906K

Retail Interior Retail Exterior

Day= -40 (+29) $

3,386K







on fireproofing

on erection

on decking


on fireproofing

on erection

on decking


on fireproofing

on erection

on decking

A Decision Framework for the

Documents

Transcript of A Decision Framework for the