Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

A Decision Framework for the. Briefing of AEC Alternatives.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "A Decision Framework for the. Briefing of AEC Alternatives."— Presentation transcript:

1 A Decision Framework for the

2 Briefing of AEC Alternatives

3 “The Blue Sky Ideas” by Calvin Kam CEE320a CIFE Seminar—October 28, 2002

4 Research Process (Fischer and Kunz)

5 Executive Summary Context: Architecture/Engineering/Construction’s decision-making process—when alternatives are evaluated with the highest influence level Process: synthesis –> briefing –> analysis –> decision Stakeholders: (1) facilitators (architects, planners, owner’s rep., …) (2) consultants (designers, engineers, subcontractors, …) (3) decision makers (clients, end-users, …) Problem: (1) Since clients can only manage a limited amount of technical decision variables simultaneously, facilitators often lock-in micro-alternatives prematurely during the synthesis stage. (2) Individuals’ moderating skills and experience often skew the comprehension and focus of the decision makers.

6 Executive Summary Points of Departure: decision analysis theories, project management theories, AEC decision making, the interactive workspace, client briefing Research Proposal: Develop a decision framework for the briefing of AEC capital alternatives in the interactive workspace (iRoom) to: (1) integrate alternatives in a decision network—delaying the lock-in (2) balance cross-disciplinary technical issues with common performance metrics: time, cost, and risk Validation Criteria: (1) Efficiency enabled by decision focus and the common metrics (2) cross-disciplinary integration (3) numbers of alternatives (4) Value of creativity

7 What is a decision? How does one know if the decision-making process is good or bad? What about the outcome? or AEC decision making? Background

8 Decisions and Alternatives Decision: involves allocation of resources; good decision analysis may not yield good outcomes Decision Basis: (1) Creative Alternatives (premature decision cages without multilateral considerations) (2) Useful Information (disperse and embedded) (3) Clear Preference and Value (not public/explicit, may be different among decision makers) In AEC context: (1) Strategic Decisions (e.g., go/no-go, schematic design alternatives) (2) Managing Operations (e.g., construction planning and methods) (Howard)

9 Cost of Decision The level of influence over the life cycle of a capital facility Decision Impact Time High Low (Paulson)

10 The process that leads to a decision in AEC The process that leads to a decision in AEC How do we compare different project alternatives today? Conventional Practice

11 The Process Synthesis: technical teams work with discipline-specific applications, come up with micro-alternatives for facilitators to filter into project alternatives—micro decisions are made Briefing:facilitators present the alternatives to the decision-makers with pertinent issues; the comprehension stage that involves description, explanation, and evaluation (against functional requirements) Analysis: the decision makers further evaluate the relative performance of the alternatives, come up with what-if scenarios for prediction and re-evaluation Tools and Means: presentation tools, individuals’ moderating skills and project experience

12 (Liston) DESCRIPTIVE (40%) EXPLANATIVE (20%) PREDICTIVE (10%) EVALUATIVE (30%)

13 Case Study 1—Design Alternatives for Strategic Decisions in the Helsinki University of Technology Case Study 1—Design Alternatives for Strategic Decisions in the Helsinki University of Technology (shows the skewing of decision focus and the lack of multi-lateral comprehension) Conventional Practice

14 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

15 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)

16 Case Study 1—Design Alternatives for Strategic Decisions in the Helsinki University of Technology Case Study 1—Design Alternatives for Strategic Decisions in the Helsinki University of Technology (shows the skewing of decision focus and the lack of multi-lateral comprehension) Conventional Practice

17 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

18

19 Case Study 1—Design Alternatives for Strategic Decisions in the Helsinki University of Technology Case Study 1—Design Alternatives for Strategic Decisions in the Helsinki University of Technology (shows the skewing of decision focus and the lack of multi-lateral comprehension) Conventional Practice

20 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

21 Motivation for my Research

22 Case Study 1—Design Alternatives for Strategic Decisions in the Helsinki University of Technology Case Study 1—Design Alternatives for Strategic Decisions in the Helsinki University of Technology (shows the skewing of decision focus and the lack of multi-lateral comprehension) Conventional Practice

23 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

24 Motivation for my Research

25 Case Study 2—Acceleration Alternatives for Case Study 2—Acceleration Alternatives for Managing Operations in the Bay Street Project To what degree can decision focus be achieved? (shows the dispersal of decision variables and the premature “caging” of micro-alternatives) I-Room Practice Today

26 Bay Street Case Study retail complex that include theaters, shops, and a parking structure fast-track construction—target 2002 Thanksgiving and Christmas season tight site where single crew per trade was introduced with little schedule slack AP AR AT

27 (DPR)

28 Case Study 2—Acceleration Alternatives for Case Study 2—Acceleration Alternatives for Managing Operations in the Bay Street Project To what degree can decision focus be achieved? (shows the dispersal of decision variables and the premature “caging” of micro-alternatives) I-Room Practice Today

29 The Delay 2 Month Delay -> 2 subs provided acceleration proposals Provided unit rates information, brainstormed for acceleration means GC synthesized and presented 3 cases to the owner’s representative in an OAC meeting owner required theater and bookstore to open “at all expenses” Conventional Practice Agree on action items, Dismiss meeting -> further analyses, Generate Proposal -> Meet again (setback: time lost, not many alternatives analyzed) Today iRoom Practice Supports semi-live analyses -> run alternatives -> summarize in table form (setback: decision factors are disperse, semi-live comparison in static views, flatten decision structure)

30

31 I-Room Demo (1) “Baseline” MS Project Schedule and Time Controller (2) Time Controller

32 I-Room Demo (1) “Baseline” 4D Model (Perspective View) (2) “Baseline” 4D Model (Perspective View)

33 I-Room Demo (1) “Baseline” 4D Model (Top View) (2) “Delay” 4D Model (Perspective View)

34 I-Room Illustration—MS Project

35 I-Room Illustration—SimVision

36 I-Room Illustration—MS Excel

37 Case Study 2—Acceleration Alternatives for Case Study 2—Acceleration Alternatives for Managing Operations in the Bay Street Project To what degree can decision focus be achieved? (shows the dispersal of decision variables and the premature “caging” of micro-alternatives) I-Room Practice Today

38 The Delay 2 Month Delay -> 2 subs provided acceleration proposals Provided unit rates information, brainstormed for acceleration means GC synthesized and presented 3 cases to the owner’s representative in an OAC meeting owner required theater and bookstore to open “at all expenses” Conventional Practice Agree on action items, Dismiss meeting -> further analyses, Generate Proposal -> Meet again (setback: time lost, not many alternatives analyzed) Today iRoom Practice Supports semi-live analyses -> run alternatives -> summarize in table form (setback: decision factors are disperse, semi-live comparison in static views, flatten decision structure)

39 Dispersal of Decision Variables

40 Case Study 2—Acceleration Alternatives for Case Study 2—Acceleration Alternatives for Managing Operations in the Bay Street Project To what degree can decision focus be achieved? (shows the dispersal of decision variables and the premature “caging” of micro-alternatives) I-Room Practice Today

41 Limitation of Today’s I-Room Decision factors are dispersed… across applications (MSP, 4D, SimVision, Excel), cases (4 cases), tabs (communication risk, schedule growth, etc.), and fields (spreadsheet, MSP) Current decision support views… Views (SV dashboard/ppt/excel) are static Fields/Cells are difficult to comprehend Flatten the decision tree: hinder creative generation of solutions hinder creative generation of solutions alternatives may not be mutually exclusive alternatives may not be mutually exclusive Simultaneous handling of decision variables… 7 +/- 2 but usually refer to same type of information (e.g., 7 numbers) Analysis rationales are often omitted or embedded… Hinder subsequent analyses (d.e.e.p.) and generation of solutions

42 Static Views; Flatten Decision Structures

43 What are the limitations of conventional practice? of today’s iRoom practice? (decision basis and process) Intuition: Alternatives in a decision network, Common Metric—time, cost, and risk What is the motivation for my work and future research? Intuition

44 Decision Process Decision BasisConventional PracticeiRoom Today Briefing  Description  Explanation  Evaluation (conformity)  Useful information  Clear preference and value  discipline-specific decision factors  no PPO linkage  author's verbal skills and presence to present and explain  embedded functional requirements  no documentation of rationales  mental synthesis of project info  caging decisions  1st degree of focus-- source+display  different sources of information/  embedded in cases/tabs/files/etc.  no live alternative synthesis  chaotic windows, apps, tabs  preset Excel/PPT alternatives  static view, semi-live  caging decisions  no documentation of rationales  flatten decision structures Analysis  Prediction (what if)  Evaluation (alternatives)  Clear preference and value  Creative alternative  ad-hoc analysis  no documentation of rationales  Facilitator's skills  few alternatives evaluated  no real time predictions  pros and cons and bullets do not communicate decision rationale and structure (qualitative only)  changes need to be redone  no documentation of rationales Decision  Clarity of action  high quality actional thought  time lost between meetings

45 Decision process Limitation of conventional and today 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 consideration  consider 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 livedelay the decision cage of alternatives ad-hoc analysisformal 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

46 Decision Making: AEC Decision Making Decision Analysis Application of DA in AEC Content:Macro Integration Micro Analysis Project Management Process:Interactive Workspace Client Briefing Information Visualization Tradeoff Analysis Capturing Client Requirements Points of Departure and Theories

47 Points of Departure Decision Analysis Relevance of decision basis and decision frames [Howard] Analyze prior application in AEC [Blum, Giarrusso, et. al.] Applicability of a decision tree and the stochastic approach Project Management Triple Constraint—encourage discussion and conveyance of customer’s emphasis [Rosenau] Network Diagram Time-Cost Trade-off Analysis CIFE’s iRoom-to-go and Application Suite iRoom infrastructure CIFE applications

48 Theories and Prior Work Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis Theories Decision structuring, cognitive map, value tree, goal programming, outranking [Belton, Stewart] Visualization and HCI Concepts “Information overload”, value of visual presentation for complex information [Tufte, Shneiderman, Wurman] Liston’s Visualization Techniques Highlight/Visual approach, D.E.P.E. metrics for evaluating decision-making tasks Divita’s Facility Alternative Creation Tool, Circle Integration Work real-time plan, execute, and re-plan PPP variables through “observe” and “predict” within a preset ontology and relations Client briefing; Capture client requirements; Level of influence, Decision cage, CRPM (Client Requirements Processing Model), Triple constraints [Barrett, Kamara]

49 Research Questions, Tasks, and Model How to integrate and visualize cross-disciplinary decision factors for the briefing of AEC capital alternatives? How to synthesize the product, process, and organization views from different alternatives into a balanced decision view? How to brief the impact of decision alternatives in time-cost-risk parameters? How to formalize risk for briefing alternatives in strategic decision and managing operation contexts? How does visual enhancement contribute to AEC briefing of decision alternatives?

50 Research Question Intuition and ObjectiveResearch Tasks Prototype 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- disciplinary decision factors address cross-disciplinary decision factors (both qualitative and quantitative) 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 alternatives  strategic decisions (free PPO, e.g., design)  managing operations (fixed product, e.g., CM) provide a briefing framework and establish common vocabulary time-cost-risk-network relative 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 if ranking, add, change alternatives and values, macro/micro inputs (F)

51 ADT4DMSPSimVision Excel CostExcelonTableTree Decision- Support Database Level of Detail 1000s 86060100s1000s 10-20 at top level 3D geometry Yes Link Name--component Yes Yes (4D)Link Name--activity Yes Yes (4D)Yes Base Cost and Budget possible Yes Yes (comp) Yes Milestone Dates (Finishes and ES) Yes Base Duration 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

52 Research Questions, Tasks, and Model How to integrate and visualize cross-disciplinary decision factors for the briefing of AEC capital alternatives? How to synthesize the product, process, and organization views from different alternatives into a balanced decision view? How to brief the impact of decision alternatives in time-cost-risk parameters? How to formalize risk for briefing alternatives in strategic decision and managing operation contexts? How does visual enhancement contribute to AEC briefing of decision alternatives?

53 Research Question Intuition and ObjectiveResearch Tasks Prototype 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- disciplinary decision factors address cross-disciplinary decision factors (both qualitative and quantitative) 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 alternatives  strategic decisions (free PPO, e.g., design)  managing operations (fixed product, e.g., CM) provide a briefing framework and establish common vocabulary time-cost-risk-network relative 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 if ranking, add, change alternatives and values, macro/micro inputs (F)

54

55 Research Questions, Tasks, and Model How to integrate and visualize cross-disciplinary decision factors for the briefing of AEC capital alternatives? How to synthesize the product, process, and organization views from different alternatives into a balanced decision view? How to brief the impact of decision alternatives in time-cost-risk parameters? How to formalize risk for briefing alternatives in strategic decision and managing operation contexts? How does visual enhancement contribute to AEC briefing of decision alternatives?

56 Research Question Intuition and ObjectiveResearch Tasks Prototype 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- disciplinary decision factors address cross-disciplinary decision factors (both qualitative and quantitative) 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 alternatives  strategic decisions (free PPO, e.g., design)  managing operations (fixed product, e.g., CM) provide a briefing framework and establish common vocabulary time-cost-risk-network relative 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 if ranking, add, change alternatives and values, macro/micro inputs (F)

57 $ 206K (1.5%) Risk Issues Theater Steel 2x bolt-up and welding 2x fireproofing overtime on erection overtime on decking Time $ 206K (1.5%) Risk Hazardous Delay Time Impact=68 days Retail TO Day= -27 (+41) $ 2,264K Parking TO Day= $ K Theater Interior Theater Exterior Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Parking Concrete Parking Interior Parking Exterior Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Concrete L1-3 Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Piles and Caps Slab-on-Grade Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Retail Steel 2x 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 ImpactAlternatives on bolt-up and welding on fireproofing on erection on decking on bolt-up and welding on fireproofing on erection on decking on bolt-up and welding on fireproofing on erection on decking

58 Research Questions, Tasks, and Model How to integrate and visualize cross-disciplinary decision factors for the briefing of AEC capital alternatives? How to synthesize the product, process, and organization views from different alternatives into a balanced decision view? How to brief the impact of decision alternatives in time-cost-risk parameters? How to formalize risk for briefing alternatives in strategic decision and managing operation contexts? How does visual enhancement contribute to AEC briefing of decision alternatives?

59 Research Question Intuition and ObjectiveResearch Tasks Prototype 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- disciplinary decision factors address cross-disciplinary decision factors (both qualitative and quantitative) 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 alternatives  strategic decisions  managing operations provide a briefing framework and establish common vocabulary time-cost-risk-network relative 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 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 if ranking, add, change alternatives and values, macro/micro inputs (F)

60 $ 206K (1.5%) Risk Issues Theater Steel 2x bolt-up and welding 2x fireproofing overtime on erection overtime on decking Time $ 206K (1.5%) Risk Parking TO Day= $ K Theater Interior Theater Exterior Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Parking Concrete Parking Interior Parking Exterior Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Retail Steel 2x bolt-up and welding 2x fireproofing overtime on erection overtime on decking Time $ 206K (1.5%) Risk Theater TO Day= -36 (+32) $ 6,906K 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 ImpactAlternatives 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 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 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 1 2 3-4 5 6 7 88 9 10 11

61 Validation Plan and Contribution 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.

62 ContributionValidation PlanValidation 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 Integration The 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.

63 ContributionValidation PlanValidation 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 Integration The 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.

64 Thank You! Questions and Discussions Pluses and Deltas

65 Executive Summary Context: Architecture/Engineering/Construction’s decision-making process—when alternatives are evaluated with the highest influence level Process: synthesis –> briefing –> analysis –> decision Stakeholders: (1) facilitators (architects, planners, owner’s rep., …) (2) consultants (designers, engineers, subcontractors, …) (3) decision makers (clients, end-users, …) Problem: (1) Since clients can only manage a limited amount of technical decision variables simultaneously, facilitators often lock-in micro-alternatives prematurely during the synthesis stage. (2) Individuals’ moderating skills and experience often skew the comprehension and focus of the decision makers.

66 Executive Summary Points of Departure: decision analysis theories, project management theories, AEC decision making, the interactive workspace, client briefing Research Proposal: Develop a decision framework for the briefing of AEC capital alternatives in the interactive workspace (iRoom) to: (1) integrate alternatives in a decision network—delaying the lock-in (2) balance cross-disciplinary technical issues with common performance metrics: time, cost, and risk Validation Criteria: (1) Efficiency enabled by decision focus and the common metrics (2) cross-disciplinary integration (3) numbers of alternatives (4) Value of creativity

67

68 Research Questions How to synthesize product/process/organization (PPO) alternatives and their associated parameters (time, cost, and risk-issue) in a decision network? How to formalize the relationships to support the inclusion of PPO alternatives in a network diagram? How to integrate PPO alternatives and the above set of relationships with their time, cost, and risk-issue variables?

69 Research Method through a set of relationships for alternatives through “decision objects”—an object oriented modeling approach

70 I-Room Practice Today 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? PredictionsLimitations: 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

71 Process Diagram—Conventional 1) isolated discrete alternatives; 2) discontinuation from predictions to synthesis, and from synthesis to new what-if’s 3) high-level evaluation of project alternatives

72 Process Diagram—Proposed Work An integrated approach for the synthesis, briefing, and analysis of predictions and alternatives

73 I-Room Practice Today Tasks: 1) Inputting an alternative—the representationLimitations: 1) Case-specific, intra-disciplinary applications Implementation Tasks—Model Input: Importing/Inputting parameters of an independent decision object Importing/Inputting alternative decision objects for PPO—products, tasks, and teams

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

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

76 I-Room Practice Today Tasks: 2) Linking disciplinary decision parameters—PPO synthesisLimitations: 2) Locking micro-alternatives, losing expedition rationale 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

77 Synthesizing micro-predictions requires locking-in of alternatives, and fixation of temporal alternatives

78 Assign relationships for alternatives and decision objects, Reference PPO “micro-predictions” Sibling Relationship Parent Relationship Temporal Relationship

79 I-Room Practice Today Tasks: 3) Briefing—explaining the alternativesLimitations: 3) No formal query of alternatives or documentation of rationales Implementation Tasks—Model Output and Support: Hierarchical extensibility to balance between macro (executive view) and micro alternatives Support query of micro-predictions

80 Synthesizing micro-predictions requires locking-in of alternatives, and fixation of temporal alternatives

81 Assign relationships for alternatives and decision objects, Reference PPO “micro-predictions” Sibling Relationship Parent Relationship Temporal Relationship

82 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

83 $ 206K (1.5%) Risk Issues Theater Steel 2x bolt-up and welding 2x fireproofing overtime on erection overtime on decking Time $ 206K (1.5%) Risk Hazardous Delay Time Impact=68 days Retail TO Day= -27 (+41) $ 2,264K Parking TO Day= $ K Theater Interior Theater Exterior Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Parking Concrete Parking Interior Parking Exterior Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Concrete L1-3 Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Piles and Caps Slab-on-Grade Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Retail Steel 2x 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 ImpactAlternatives on bolt-up and welding on fireproofing on erection on decking on bolt-up and welding on fireproofing on erection on decking on bolt-up and welding on fireproofing on erection on decking

84 $ 206K (1.5%) Risk Issues Theater Steel 2x bolt-up and welding 2x fireproofing overtime on erection overtime on decking Time $ 206K (1.5%) Risk Hazardous Delay Time Impact=68 days Retail TO Day= -27 (+41) $ 2,264K Parking TO Day= $ K Theater Interior Theater Exterior Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Parking Concrete Parking Interior Parking Exterior Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Concrete L1-3 Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Piles and Caps Slab-on-Grade Day= -40 (+29) $ 3,386K Retail Steel 2x 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 ImpactAlternatives on bolt-up and welding on fireproofing on erection on decking on bolt-up and welding on fireproofing on erection on decking on bolt-up and welding on fireproofing on erection on decking


Download ppt "A Decision Framework for the. Briefing of AEC Alternatives."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google