A Decision Framework for the

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. Background • 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?

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

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

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

13. Conventional Practice • 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)

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 Quantitative Factors (e.g., cost) 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)

16. Conventional Practice • 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)

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

19. Conventional Practice • 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)

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. Conventional Practice • 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)

23. The hybrid design revoked mechanical and structural assumptions and led to: • 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. I-Room Practice Today • 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)

26. AP AR AT 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

27. (DPR)

28. I-Room Practice Today • 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)

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)

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. I-Room Practice Today • 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)

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. I-Room Practice Today • 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)

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 • 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. Intuition • 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?

46. Points of Departure and Theories • 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

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?