Coordinating Goals, Preferences, Options, and Analyses for the Stanford Living Laboratory Feasibility Study

  • John Haymaker
  • John Chachere
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4200)


This paper describes an initial application of Multi-Attribute Collective Decision Analysis for a Design Initiative (MACDADI) on the feasibility study of a mixed-use facility. First, observations of the difficulties the design team experienced communicating their goals, preferences, options, and analyses are presented. Next, the paper describes a formal intervention by the authors, integrating survey, interview, and analytic methods. The project team collected, synthesized, and hierarchically organized their goals; stakeholders’ established their relative preferences with respect to these goals; the design team formally rated the design options with respect to the goals; the project team then visualized and assessed the goals, options, preferences, and analyses to assist in a transparent and formal decision making process. A discussion of some of the strengths and weaknesses of the MACDADI process is presented and opportunities for future improvement are identified.


Project Team Design Option Design Team Green Roof Project Goal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gero, J.S.: Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design. AI Magazine, Special issue on AI based design systems, Maher, M.L., Gero, J.S. (guest eds.)  11(4), 26–36 (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kunz, W., Rittel, H.: Issues as elements of information systems. Working Paper No. 131, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California (1970)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASTM International. Standard Practice for Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems, ASTM Designation E 1765-98, West Conshohocken, PA (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keeney, R., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Chichester (1976)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haymaker, J., Fischer, M., Kunz, J., Suter, B.: Engineering test cases to motivate the formalization of an AEC project model as a directed acyclic graph of views and dependencies. ITcon 9, 419–441 (2004),
  6. 6.
    BNIM: Building for Sustainability Report: Six scenarios for the David and Lucile Packard Foundation Los Altos Project (2002),
  7. 7.
    EHDD: Stanford University Green Dorm Feasibility Report, in production (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kiviniemi, A.: PREMISS - Requirements Management Interface To Building Product Models. Ph.D thesis, Stanford University (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kam, C.: Dynamic Decision Breakdown Structure: Ontology, Methodology, And Framework For Information Management In Support of Decision-Enabling Task In The Building Industry. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, CA (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gentil, S., Montmain, J.: Hierarchical representation of complex systems for supporting human decision making. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18(3), 143–160 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Haymaker
    • 1
  • John Chachere
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Construction Engineering and Management, Civil and Environmental EngineeringStanford University 
  2. 2.Management Science and Engineering, Civil and Environmental EngineeringStanford University 

Personalised recommendations