| ||Format||Pages||Price|| |
|20||$50.00||  ADD TO CART|
|Hardcopy (shipping and handling)||20||$50.00||  ADD TO CART|
|Standard + Redline PDF Bundle||40||$60.00||  ADD TO CART|
Significance and Use
5.1 The AHP method allows you to generate a single measure of desirability for project/product/process alternatives with respect to multiple attributes (qualitative and quantitative). By contrast, life-cycle cost (Practice ), net savings (Practice ), savings-to-investment ratio (Practice ), internal rate-of-return (Practice ), and payback (Practice ) methods all require you to put a monetary value on benefits and costs in order to include them in a measure of project/product/process worth.
5.2 Use AHP to evaluate a finite and generally small set of discrete and predetermined options or alternatives. Specific AHP applications are ranking and choosing among alternatives. For example, rank alternative building locations with AHP to see how they measure up to one another, or use AHP to choose among building materials to see which is best for your application.
5.3 Use AHP if no single alternative exhibits the most preferred available value or performance for all attributes. This is often the result of an underlying trade-off relationship among attributes. An example is the trade-off between low desired energy costs and large glass window areas (which may raise heating and cooling costs while lowering lighting costs).
5.4 Use AHP to evaluate alternatives whose attributes are not all measurable in the same units. Also use AHP when performance relative to some or all of the attributes is impractical, impossible, or too costly to measure. For example, while life-cycle costs are directly measured in monetary units, the number and size of offices are measured in other units, and the public image of a building may not be practically measurable in any unit. To help you choose among candidate buildings with these diverse attributes, use AHP to evaluate your alternatives.
5.5 The AHP method is well-suited for application to a variety of sustainability-related topics. Guide states when applying the concept of sustainability, it is necessary to assess and balance three dissimilar, yet interrelated general principles—environment, economic, and social—based on the best information available at the time the decision is made. Use AHP for pairwise comparisons among environmental attributes, among economic attributes, and among social attributes, and for establishing relative importance weights for each attribute and for each of the three general principles to which the attributes are attached. Use the AHP-established relative importance weights to select the preferred project/product/process from among the competing alternatives.
5.6 Potential users of AHP include architects, developers, owners, or lessors of buildings, real estate professionals (commercial and residential), facility managers, building material manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, product and process engineers, life cycle assessment experts, and agencies managing building portfolios.
1.1 This practice presents a procedure for calculating and interpreting AHP scores of a project's/product’s/process’ total overall desirability when making capital investment decisions. Projects include design, construction, operation, and disposal of commercial and residential buildings and other engineered structures. Products include materials, components, systems, and equipment. Processes include procurement, materials management, work flow, fabrication and assembly, quality control, and services.
1.2 In addition to monetary benefits and costs, the procedure allows for the consideration of characteristics or attributes which decision makers regard as important, but which are not readily expressed in monetary terms. Examples of such attributes that pertain to the selection among project/product/process alternatives are: a construction projects’s building alternatives whose nonmonetary attributes are location/accessibility, site security, maintainability, quality of the sound and visual environment, and image to the public and occupants; building products based on their economic and environmental performance; and sustainability-related issues for key construction processes that address environmental needs, while considering project safety, cost, and schedule.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
2. Referenced Documents (purchase separately) The documents listed below are referenced within the subject standard but are not provided as part of the standard.
E631 Terminology of Building Constructions
E833 Terminology of Building Economics
E917 Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems
E964 Practice for Measuring Benefit-to-Cost and Savings-to-Investment Ratios for Buildings and Building Systems
E1057 Practice for Measuring Internal Rate of Return and Adjusted Internal Rate of Return for Investments in Buildings and Building Systems
E1074 Practice for Measuring Net Benefits and Net Savings for Investments in Buildings and Building Systems
E1121 Practice for Measuring Payback for Investments in Buildings and Building Systems
E1334 Practice for Rating the Serviceability of a Building or Building-Related Facility
E1480 Terminology of Facility Management (Building-Related)
E1557 Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework--UNIFORMAT II
E1660 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Support for Office Work
E1661 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Meetings and Group Effectiveness
E1662 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Sound and Visual Environment
E1663 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Typical Office Information Technology
E1664 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Layout and Building Factors
E1665 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Facility Protection
E1666 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Work Outside Normal Hours or Conditions
E1667 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Image to the Public and Occupants
E1668 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Amenities to Attract and Retain Staff
E1669 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Location, Access and Wayfinding
E1670 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Management of Operations and Maintenance
E1671 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Cleanliness
E1679 Practice for Setting the Requirements for the Serviceability of a Building or Building-Related Facility
E1692 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Change and Churn by Occupants
E1693 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Protection of Occupant Assets
E1694 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Special Facilities and Technologies
E1700 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Structure and Building Envelope
E1701 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Manageability
E2320 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility for Thermal Environment and Indoor Air Conditions
ICS Number Code 03.100.50 (Production. Production management); 91.010.99 (Other aspects)
UNSPSC Code 30000000(Structures and Building and Construction and Manufacturing Components and Supplies); 81120000(Economics)
|Link to Active (This link will always route to the current Active version of the standard.)|
ASTM E1765-16, Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Projects, Products, and Processes, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016, www.astm.orgBack to Top