Multiattribute decision analysis (MADA) methods consider non-fmcial attributes (qualitative and quantitative) in addition to common fmcial worth measures when evaluating project alternatives. The building community needs MADA methods to evaluate building and building-related investment alternatives where non-fmcial attributes are important. The report reviews 14 classes of methods for performing MADA. It summarizes their usefulness for screening, ranking, and choosing among projects; their data input requirements; and how each method scores project alternatives. Two methods--the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and non-traditional capital investment criteria (NCIC)--are described in detail. Assumptions, procedures, strengths, and limitations are described for each.AHP was selected for detailed description because of four important strengths: it is well-known and well-reviewed in the literature; it includes an efficient attribute weighting process of pairwise comparisons; it incorporates hierarchical descriptions of attributes, which keeps the number of pairwise comparisons manageable; and most of all, its use is facilitated by available software. A case study of a hypothetical company choosing a new headquarters illustrates AHP in choosing among building alternatives.NCIC was selected for detailed description because of four strong points: it was designed to address some of the criticisms of AHP which have appeared in the literature; it includes pairwise comparisons for el%ciency; it incorporates hierarchical descriptions of attributes to keep the number of pairwise comparisons manageable; and most of all, it develops "scores" for alternatives which are denominated in monetary terms, making otherwise implied valuation of attributes explicit and allowing the results to be incorporated into traditional economic worth analyses. A case study of a hypothetical company selecting the location of a new branch ofiice illustrates NCIC.Detailed descriptions of some typical building-related decisions--choosing among office buildings, residences, building components, and building materials--provide additional examples of possible MADA applications. A list of 15 building-related attributes, with complete deftitions, helps decision makers customize a MADA model for making a building choice. Although the report focuses on buildings, MADA methods apply equally to the evaluation of non-building capital budgeting decisions. PrefaceThis is the seventh in a series of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), formerly the National Bureau of Standards, reportsl on recommended standards related to applying economic evaluation methods to building decisions. The fust four deait with the theory and application of economic methods of analysis, including life-cycle costing, net benefits, benefit-to-cost and savingsto-investment ratios, internal rate of return, and payback. These reports were used as the bases for standard practices published by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).The fifth NEST repor...

All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means-graphie, electronie, or mechanical , including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems-without written permission of the publisher.

This report describes UNIFORMAT II, a format for classifying building elements and related sitework. Elements, as defined here, are major components common to most buildings. Elements usually perform a given function, regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used. Using UNIFORMAT II ensures consistency in the economic evaluation of building projects over time and from project to project, and it enhances project management and reporting at all stages of the building life cycle-planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and disposal. UNIFORMAT II is a significant advance over the original UNIFORMAT classification in that it has added elements and expanded descriptions of many existing elements. This report proposes a fourth level of definition to augment the three hierarchical levels provided in the original UNIFORMAT II. Starting from Level 1, the largest element grouping, it identifies Major Group Elements such as the Substructure, Shell, and Interiors. Level 2 subdivides Level 1 elements into Group Elements. The Shell, for example, includes the Superstructure, Exterior Closure, and Roofing. Level 3 breaks the Group Elements further into Individual Elements. Exterior Closure, for example, includes Exterior Walls, Exterior Windows, and Exterior Doors. The proposed Level 4 breaks the individual elements into yet smaller sub-elements. Standard Foundation subelements, for example, include wall foundations, column foundations, perimeter drainage, and insulation. A major benefit of performing an economic analysis based on an elemental framework instead of on a product-based classification is the reduction in time and costs for evaluating alternatives at the early design stage. This encourages more economic analyses and more economically efficient choices among buildings and building elements. Other UNIFORMAT II benefits include providing a standardized format for collecting and analyzing historical data to use in estimating and budgeting future projects; providing a checklist for the cost estimation process as well as the creativity phase of the value engineering job plan; providing a basis for training in cost estimation; facilitating communications among members of a project team regarding the scope of work and costs in each discipline; and establishing a database for automated cost estimating. This report focuses on the benefits of applying UNIFORMAT II in design specifications, cost estimating, and cost analysis. A proposed summary sheet for presenting building and sitework elemental costs with cost analysis parameters provides an efficient tool for communicating economic information to decision makers in a quickly understood, concise format that helps them make project choices. Owners, developers, programmers, cost planners, project managers, schedulers, architects and engineers, operating and maintenance staff, manufacturers, specification writers, and educators will find the classification useful.ii iii Preface This is the seventh in a series of National In...

The Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Soil Conservation Service share costs of water resource development with nonfederal groups. An efficiency problem results when cost sharing rules induce local groups to demand projects that, although efficient for the local community, are not most efficient for society. An examination of present cost sharing shows that there are inconsistencies in cost sharing rules and practices among agencies. Such inconsistencies induce local groups to select techniques of production and scales of development that are not socially efficient. Two general rules for eliminating these inefficiencies are (1) to share in the same proportion costs of all techniques used to provide a single purpose, and (2) to share costs for a single purpose in proportion to benefits received at the margin. Application of these rules would result in lower social expenditures and higher local expenditures for a given level of development, and local groups would not have such strong incentives to shop among agencies for the loweit local cost share. HAROLD EMORY MARSHALL

No abstract