A new method for applying choosing by advantages (CBA) multicriteria decision to a large number of design alternatives

Abstract The design of buildings, civil infrastructure and other complex systems in our built environment involves considering many, often conflicting, design criteria. Architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) project teams often use multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods to help them arrive at a preferred design solution. An emergent MCDM method in practice today is Choosing by Advantages (CBA) which has been successfully applied to many AEC projects. This method has several benefits over traditional MCDM methods (such as the weighted sum): CBA does not allow to hide a compensation of money for value, CBA helps differentiate between alternatives based on the decision context, CBA reduces time to reach consensus, and it manages better subjective trade-offs by basing decisions on importance of agreed advantages. CBA is usually applied between two to ten alternatives, and it has never been used for more than one hundred alternatives. Hence, this study contributes to knowledge by developing and testing a new method for applying CBA to hundreds or thousands of alternatives. The new method involves clustering alternatives into a few representative design alternatives based on feature similarity using the K-means method. Preferences between these representative design alternatives are then generalized using linear regression. An experiment involving student subjects was conducted to measure the level of accuracy in which preferences can be generalized by the proposed method. The experiment considered 1,000 different building design alternatives. CBA was applied on representative alternatives using three, six, eight, and ten clusters. The study measured errors, correlations, and consistency of the predictions for each cluster configuration. When eight clusters were used for creating representative alternatives, decisions were always consistent to those made with random alternatives, and correlation with the predicted preference was higher with lower error compared to other cluster configurations tested.

[1]  Michele Rosano,et al.  A decision support system for sustainable energy supply combining multi-objective and multi-attribute analysis: An Australian case study , 2014, Decis. Support Syst..

[2]  O. Petkova,et al.  Mixing Multiple Criteria Decision Making with soft systems thinking techniques for decision support in complex situations , 2007, Decis. Support Syst..

[3]  Paz Arroyo,et al.  Exploring Decision-Making Methods for Sustainable Design in Commercial Buildings , 2014 .

[4]  John Haymaker,et al.  A comparison of multidisciplinary design, analysis and optimization processes in the building construction and aerospace industries , 2007 .

[5]  Shahaboddin Shamshirband,et al.  Comparative study of clustering methods for wake effect analysis in wind farm , 2016 .

[6]  Iris D. Tommelein,et al.  Comparing AHP and CBA as Decision Methods to Resolve the Choosing Problem in Detailed Design , 2015 .

[7]  Godfried Augenbroe,et al.  Multi-criteria decision making under uncertainty in building performance assessment , 2013 .

[8]  Iris D. Tommelein,et al.  Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Select Sustainable Alternatives in the AEC Industry , 2012 .

[9]  F. Flourentzou,et al.  Hermione, une nouvelle méthode d'agrégation qualitative basée sur des règles. , 2003 .

[10]  Joshua Zhexue Huang,et al.  Extensions to the k-Means Algorithm for Clustering Large Data Sets with Categorical Values , 1998, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[11]  Selim Zaim,et al.  Development of a hybrid methodology for ERP system selection: The case of Turkish Airlines , 2014, Decis. Support Syst..

[12]  Iris D. Tommelein,et al.  Choosing by advantages: A case study for selecting an HVAC system for a net zero energy museum , 2016 .

[13]  Daniel Jato-Espino,et al.  A review of application of multi-criteria decision making methods in construction , 2014 .

[14]  Iris D. Tommelein,et al.  Selecting Globally Sustainable Materials: A Case Study Using Choosing by Advantages , 2016 .

[15]  Matthew R. Hallowell,et al.  Collaborating in decision making of sustainable building design: An experimental study comparing CBA and WRC methods , 2016 .

[16]  Yen-Liang Chen,et al.  A novel summarization technique for the support of resolving multi-criteria decision making problems , 2015, Decis. Support Syst..

[17]  Sushil Kumar,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[18]  Weimin Wang,et al.  Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in green building design optimization , 2005 .

[19]  Elizabeth Aparecida Ferraz da Silva Torres,et al.  The application of hierarchical clusters analysis to the study of the composition of foods , 2006 .

[20]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Data clustering: a review , 1999, CSUR.

[21]  Zenonas Turskis,et al.  Decision Making in Construction Management: AHP and Expert Choice Approach , 2017 .

[22]  John Haymaker,et al.  Multidisciplinary process integration and design optimization of a classroom building , 2009, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[23]  Francesco Masulli,et al.  A survey of kernel and spectral methods for clustering , 2008, Pattern Recognit..