ASTM E1765-16(2023)
(Practice)Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Projects, Products, and Processes
Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Projects, Products, and Processes
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 E917), net savings (Practice E1074), savings-to-investment ratio (Practice E964), internal rate-of-return (Practice E1057), and payback (Practice E1121) 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 E2432 states when applying the concept of sustainability, it is necessary ...
SCOPE
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.3 Projects include design, construction, operation, and disposal of commercial and residential buildings and other engineered structures.4 Products include materials, components, systems, and equipment.5 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, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
General Information
Relations
Standards Content (Sample)
This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Designation: E1765 − 16 (Reapproved 2023)
Standard Practice for
Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to
Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to
Projects, Products, and Processes
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1765; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
INTRODUCTION
The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is one of a set of multi-attribute decision analysis (MADA)
methods that considers nonmonetary attributes (qualitative and quantitative) in addition to common
economic evaluation measures (such as life-cycle costing or net benefits) when evaluating project,
product, and process alternatives. Investment decisions depend in part on how competing options
perform with respect to nonmonetary attributes. This practice complements existing ASTM standards
on building economics by incorporating the existing economic/monetary measures of worth described
in those standards into a more comprehensive standard method of evaluation that includes
nonmonetary (quantitative and nonquantitative) benefits and costs. The AHP is the MADA method
described in this practice. It has three significant strengths: an efficient attribute weighting process of
pairwise comparisons; hierarchical descriptions of attributes, which keep the number of pairwise
comparisons manageable; and available software to facilitate its use.
1. Scope and equipment. Processes include procurement, materials
management, work flow, fabrication and assembly, quality
1.1 This practice presents a procedure for calculating and
control, and services.
interpreting AHP scores of a project’s/product’s/process’ total
1.2 In addition to monetary benefits and costs, the procedure
overall desirability when making capital investment decisions.
allows for the consideration of characteristics or attributes
Projects include design, construction, operation, and disposal
which decision makers regard as important, but which are not
of commercial and residential buildings and other engineered
readily expressed in monetary terms. Examples of such attri-
structures. Products include materials, components, systems,
butes that pertain to the selection among project/product/
process alternatives are: a construction projects’s building
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E06 on Perfor-
alternatives whose nonmonetary attributes are location/
mance of Buildings and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E06.81 on
accessibility, site security, maintainability, quality of the sound
Building Economics.
and visual environment, and image to the public and occu-
Current edition approved May 1, 2023. Published May 2023. Originally
ɛ1
approved in 1995. Last previous edition approved in 2016 as E1765 – 16 . DOI: pants; building products based on their economic and environ-
10.1520/E1765-16R23.
mental performance; and sustainability-related issues for key
For an extensive overview of MADA methods and a detailed treatment of how
construction processes that address environmental needs, while
to apply two MADA methods (one of which is AHP) to building-related decisions,
considering project safety, cost, and schedule.
see Norris, G A., and Marshall, H.E., Multiattribute Decision Analysis: Recom-
mended Method for Evaluating Buildings and Building Systems, National Institute
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the
of Standards and Technology, 1995.
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
This practice presents a stand-alone procedure for performing an AHP analysis.
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
In addition, an ASTM software product for performing AHP analyses has been
developed to support and facilitate use of this practice. Software to Support ASTM
priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter-
E1765: Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building
Systems, MNL 29, ASTM, 1998.
4 5
Projects also include analytical studies that identify alternative means for Typical construction-related products for each product type are: (1) materials—
achieving organizational objectives as well as research and development activities concrete; (2) components—structural steel members; (3) systems—heating,
that support the deployment of new products and processes. ventilating, and air-conditioning system; and (4) equipment—heat pump.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E1765 − 16 (2023)
1.4 This international standard was developed in accor- E1692 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard- for Change and Churn by Occupants
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the E1693 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom- for Protection of Occupant Assets
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical E1694 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. for Special Facilities and Technologies
E1700 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
2. Referenced Documents
for Structure and Building Envelope
6 E1701 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
2.1 ASTM Standards:
for Manageability
E631 Terminology of Building Constructions
E2114 Terminology for Sustainability
E833 Terminology of Building Economics
E2320 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
E917 Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings
for Thermal Environment and Indoor Air Conditions
and Building Systems
E2432 Guide for General Principles of Sustainability Rela-
E964 Practice for Measuring Benefit-to-Cost and Savings-
tive to the Built Environment
to-Investment Ratios for Buildings and Building Systems
2.2 ASTM Adjunct:
E1057 Practice for Measuring Internal Rate of Return and
Discount Factor Tables - Adjunct to E917 Practice for
Adjusted Internal Rate of Return for Investments in
Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building
Buildings and Building Systems
Systems - Includes Excel and PDF Files
E1074 Practice for Measuring Net Benefits and Net Savings
2.3 ASTM Software Product:
for Investments in Buildings and Building Systems
MNL 29 Software to Support ASTM E1765: Standard
E1121 Practice for Measuring Payback for Investments in
Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Buildings and Building Systems
E1480 Terminology of Facility Management (Building- to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Re-
lated to Buildings and Building Systems
Related)
E1557 Classification for Building Elements and Related
3. Terminology
Sitework—UNIFORMAT II
E1660 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
3.1 Definitions—For definitions of general terms related to
for Support for Office Work
building construction used in this practice, refer to Terminol-
E1661 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
ogy E631; for general terms related to building economics,
for Meetings and Group Effectiveness
refer to Terminology E833; and for general terms related to
E1662 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
whole buildings and facilities, refer to Terminology E1480. For
for Sound and Visual Environment
definitions of general terms related to sustainability relative to
E1663 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
the performance of buildings, refer to Terminology E2114.
for Typical Office Information Technology
4. Summary of Practice
E1664 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
for Layout and Building Factors
4.1 This practice helps you identify a MADA application,
E1665 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
describe the elements that make up a MADA problem, and
for Facility Protection
recognize the three types of problems that MADA can address:
E1666 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
screening alternatives, ranking alternatives, and choosing a
for Work Outside Normal Hours or Conditions
final “best” alternative.
E1667 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
4.2 A comprehensive list of selected attributes (monetary
for Image to the Public and Occupants
and nonmonetary) for evaluating building decisions provides a
E1668 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
pick list for customizing an AHP model that best fits your
for Amenities to Attract and Retain Staff
building-related decision. Three types of building decisions to
E1669 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
which the list applies are choosing among buildings, choosing
for Location, Access and Wayfinding
among building components, and choosing among building
E1670 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
materials. Examples of these typical building-related decisions
for Management of Operations and Maintenance
are provided.
E1671 Classification for Serviceability of an Office Facility
for Cleanliness 4.3 A case illustration of a building choice decision shows
E1679 Practice for Setting the Requirements for the Service- how to structure a problem in a hierarchical fashion, describe
ability of a Building or Building-Related Facility, and for the attributes of each alternative in a decision matrix, compute
attribute weights, check for consistency in pairwise
Determining What Serviceability is Provided or Proposed
comparisons, and develop the final desirability scores of each
alternative.
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on Available from ASTM International Headquarters. Order Adjunct No.
the ASTM website. ADJE091717-EA. Original adjunct produced in 1984. Adjunct last revised in 2017.
E1765 − 16 (2023)
4.4 A description of the applications and limitations of the 6. Procedure
AHP method concludes this practice.
6.1 To carry out a MADA analysis using AHP, follow this
procedure:
5. Significance and Use
6.1.1 Identify the elements of your problem to confirm that
a MADA analysis is appropriate (see 6.2);
5.1 The AHP method allows you to generate a single
6.1.2 Determine the goal or objective of the analysis, select
measure of desirability for project/product/process alternatives
the attributes on the basis of which you plan to choose an
with respect to multiple attributes (qualitative and quantita-
alternative, arrange the attributes in a hierarchy, identify the
tive). By contrast, life-cycle cost (Practice E917), net savings
attribute sets in the hierarchy, identify the leaf attributes in the
(Practice E1074), savings-to-investment ratio (Practice E964),
hierarchy, and identify alternatives to consider (see 6.3);
internal rate-of-return (Practice E1057), and payback (Practice
6.1.3 Construct a decision matrix summarizing available
E1121) methods all require you to put a monetary value on
data on the performance of each alternative with respect to
benefits and costs in order to include them in a measure of
each leaf attribute (see 6.4);
project/product/process worth.
6.1.4 Compare in pairwise fashion each alternative against
5.2 Use AHP to evaluate a finite and generally small set of
every other alternative as to how much better one is than the
discrete and predetermined options or alternatives. Specific other with respect to each leaf attribute (see 6.5);
AHP applications are ranking and choosing among alterna- 6.1.5 Make pairwise comparisons, starting from the bottom
tives. For example, rank alternative building locations with of the hierarchy, of the relative importance of each attribute in
AHP to see how they measure up to one another, or use AHP a given set with respect to the attribute or goal immediately
above that set in the hierarchy (see 6.6); and
to choose among building materials to see which is best for
your application. 6.1.6 Compute the final overall desirability score for each
alternative (see 6.7).
5.3 Use AHP if no single alternative exhibits the most
6.2 Confirm that a MADA analysis is appropriate. Three
preferred available value or performance for all attributes. This
elements are typically common to MADA problems.
is often the result of an underlying trade-off relationship among
6.2.1 MADA problems involve analysis of a finite and
attributes. An example is the trade-off between low desired
generally small set of discrete and predetermined options or
energy costs and large glass window areas (which may raise
alternatives. They do not involve the design of a “best”
heating and cooling costs while lowering lighting costs).
alternative from among a theoretically infinite set of possible
5.4 Use AHP to evaluate alternatives whose attributes are
designs where the decision maker considers trade-offs among
not all measurable in the same units. Also use AHP when
interacting continuous decision variables. Selecting a replace-
performance relative to some or all of the attributes is
ment HVAC system for an existing building is a MADA
impractical, impossible, or too costly to measure. For example,
problem. In contrast, the integrated design and sizing of a
while life-cycle costs are directly measured in monetary units,
future building and its HVAC system is not a MADA problem.
the number and size of offices are measured in other units, and
6.2.2 In MADA problems, no single alternative is dominant,
the public image of a building may not be practically measur-
that is, no alternative exhibits the most preferred value or
able in any unit. To help you choose among candidate buildings
performance for all attributes. If one alternative is dominant, a
with these diverse attributes, use AHP to evaluate your MADA analysis is not needed. You simply choose that alter-
alternatives.
native. The lack of a dominant alternative is often the result of
an underlying trade-off relationship among attributes. An
5.5 The AHP method is well-suited for application to a
example is the trade-off between proximity to the central
variety of s
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.