Wednesday , August 15 2018

Multi-criteria Assessment Model of Technologies

Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS, Zenonas TURSKIS,
Robertas VOLVAČIOVAS, Simona KILDIENE
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,

Saulètekio Ave. 11, Vilnius, LT-10223, Lithuania
{edmundas.zadadskas; zenonan.turskis;
robertas.volvaciovas; simona.kildiene}@vgtu.lt

Abstract: Construction is a sector that accepts innovations slowly. Selection of effective technological systems in construction is a complex multi-criteria task. Many decision-makers refuse innovations once faced with similar difficulties. The article presents an original approach towards a development of multi-criteria assessment and ranking technique for alternatives of technology in construction. The problem was solved using different well-known MCDM methods ELECTRE IV and MULTIMOORA. Three hybrid methods SWARA-TOPSIS, SWARA-ELECTRE III, SWARA-VIKOR were used to solve the same problem. Priority of considered alternatives was determined based on the average of alternatives performance rank. The article presents a practical case study on evaluation of different alternatives for public buildings refurbishment using typical and novel thermal insulation technologies for facades. Research results demonstrate that novel facades thermal insulation alternatives for facades have a higher performance level than commonly used ones.

Keywords: MCDM, model, ELECTRE IV, MULTIMOORA, SWARA-TOPSIS, SWARA-ELECTRE III, SWARA-VIKOR, facades, thermal insulation.

>Full text
CITE THIS PAPER AS:
Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS, Zenonas TURSKIS, Robertas VOLVACIOVAS, Simona KILDIENE, Multi-criteria Assessment Model of Technologies, Studies in Informatics and Control, ISSN 1220-1766, vol. 22 (4), pp. 249-258, 2013.

  1. Introduction

Market participants avoid investing in novel and advanced technologies as usually such decisions are associated with staff training, higher initial costs and uncertainty regarding the possible benefits. For this reason, complex model for the assessment of technological solutions should be developed to facilitate the generation and development of commercially viable products. Technology selection is a complex and intricate problem. A decision-maker is not always able to adequately assess conflicting criteria and find the most preferable solution [1, 2]. A multi-criteria model and different techniques provide means to resolve the problem as follows:

  • selection and analysis of alternatives related to the objective;
  • selection and analysis of criteria that describe the alternatives;
  • selection of the most important criteria;
  • setting weights for each criterion (significance or priority);
  • gathering of criteria values;
  • testing of criteria values;
  • application of multi-criteria methods;
  • selection of the preferred (optimal) alternative.

The model could be applied for ranking and assessment of technologies as well as evaluation of products, processes and innovative solutions. Refurbishment and renovation of buildings is a world-wide problem of crucial importance. In this article, performance of the model is investigated by solving the renovation problem: undertaking a comparative assessment of alternatives of typical and novel facade insulation technologies for refurbishment of public buildings. Potentially, the market for new high efficient technologies in the insulation sector is unlimited. Even when taking into account the diversity of insulation needs across Europe (depending, for instance, on climate specificities), all individual homes, buildings and industries could be the target of these technologies [3]. However, innovative technologies represent a small share of the total turnover of the insulation market in the European Union (around 5%). With policy makers and civil society increasingly focusing on energy efficiency and the environmental impact of construction products, more innovative products are entering the market [4], [5]. With energy efficiency being a European flagship action in the EU 2020 strategy, awareness among producers and end users should rise, and drive the market to further take into account the environmental-related performance of the products [6]. Most of the electricity, which is generated in Europe, is consumed in buildings. Residential buildings consume about 2/3 of energy per whole building sector [7], [8]. Old apartment buildings use the largest share of energy in post-Soviet countries. This situation was caused by Soviet construction norms. Nowadays, these buildings do not meet the requirements of modern world development and construction norms. These buildings should to be retrofitted (renovated). Research findings and examples of implemented projects show the existence of a huge energy efficiency potential in post-Soviet buildings. Assessment of thermal insulation technologies for buildings is a MCDM problem. Such point of view to the problem supports the development of innovative technological solutions that comply with needs and requirements of the market and enable their effective industrial implementation.

Technology selection is a complex MCDM problem. The process includes different criteria, determination of criteria weights and most importantly to choose the right technique. Zavadskas and Turskis [9] stated that the major criticism issued in the address of MCDM methods is related to the different techniques. Sometimes, different results are obtained when applied to the same problem.

The main reasons of this are:

  • Using weights differently;
  • Different selection of the best solution;
  • Attempt to scale objectives;
  • Introducing additional parameters that affect the solution.

REFERENCES

  1. OZEL, M., Effect of Wall Orientation on the Optimum Insulation Thickness by Using a Dynamic Method, Applied Energy, vol. 88, no. 7, 2011, pp. 2429-2435.
  2. RUZGYS, A., R. VOLVAČIOVAS, Č. IGNATAVIČIUS, Z. TURSKIS, Integrated Evaluation of External Wall Insulation in Residential Buildings using SWARA-TODIM MCDM Method, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2013, in press.
  3. VOLVAČIOVAS, R., Z. TURSKIS, Č. IGNATAVIČIUS, L. USTINOVIČIUS, A. RUZGYS. Considering the Issue of Renovating Public Buildings with Reference to In-kind Investigations into Wall Heat Transfer Coefficients, Engineering Structures and Technologies, vol. 5, no. 2, 2013, pp. 82-91.
  1. KHASREEN, M. M., P. F. G. BANFILL, G. F. MENZIES, Life-Cycle Assessment and the Environmental Impact of Buildings: A Review, Sustainability, vol. 1, 2009, pp. 674-701.
  2. BLIND, K., The Influence of Regulations on Innovation: A Quantitative Assessment for OECD Countries, Research Policy, vol. 41, no. 2, 2012, pp. 391-400.
  3. LONSDALE, J., M. PEACOCK, N. SHEMBAVNEKAR, A. ERBILGIC, T. KULYK, P. LARRUE, P. EPARVIER, C. HINOJOSA, Detailed Assessment of the Market Potential, and Demand for, an EU etv Scheme, Business Case Annexes To the European Commission DG Environment, Under Framework Contract No. DG BUDG No BUDG06/PO/01/LOT no. 1 ABAC 101931 – EU ETV Scheme., 2011, pp. 1-127.
  4. KONSTANTINOU, T., U. KNAACK, Refurbishment of Residential Buildings: a Design Approach to Energy-Efficiency Upgrades, in 2011 International Conference on Green Buildings and Sustainable Cities, Procedia Engineering, vol. 21, 2011, pp. 666-675.
  5. KYRÖ, R., J. HEINONEN, A. SÄYNÄJOKI, S. JUNNILA, Occupants have Little Influence on the Overall Energy Consumption in District Heated Apartment Buildings, Energy and Buildings, vol. 43, no. 12, 2011, pp. 3484-3490.
  6. ZAVADSKAS, E. K., Z. TURSKIS, Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods in Economics: An Overview, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 17, no. 2, 2011, pp. 397-427.
  7. KERŠULIENĖ, V., E.K. ZAVADSKAS, Z. TURSKIS, Selection of Rational Dispute Resolution Method by Applying New Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA), Journal of Business Economics and Management, vol. 11, no. 2, 2010, pp. 243-258.
  8. BRAUERS, W. K. M., E. K. ZAVADSKAS, The MOORA Method and its Application to Privatization in a Transition Economy, Control and Cybernetics, vol. 35, no. 2, 2006, pp. 445-469.
  9. KARANDE, P., S. CHAKRABORTY, Application of Multi-objective Optimization on the Basis of Ratio Analysis (MOORA) Method for Materials Selection, Materials and Design, vol. 37, 2012, pp. 317-324.
  10. BRAUERS, W. K. M., E. K. ZAVADSKAS, Project Management by MULTIMOORA as an Instrument for Transition Economies, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 16, no. 1, 2010, pp. 5-24.
  11. BRAUERS, W. K. M., R. GINEVICIUS, V. PODVEZKO, Regional Development in Lithuania Considering Multiple Objectives by the MOORA Method, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 16, no. 4, 2010, pp. 613-640.
  12. KRACKA, M., E. K. ZAVADSKAS, Panel Building Refurbishment Elements Effective Selection by Applying Multiple-criteria Methods, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, vol. 17, no. 2, 2013, pp. 210-219.
  13. BRAUERS, W. K. M., M. KRACKA, E. K. ZAVADSKAS, Lithuanian Case Study of Masonry Buildings from the Soviet Period, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, vol. 18, no. 3, 2012, pp. 444-456.
  14. KRACKA, M., W. K. M. BRAUERS, E. K. ZAVADSKAS, Ranking Heating Losses in a Building by Applying the MULTIMOORA, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, vol. 21, no. (4), 2010, pp. 352-359.
  15. ROY, B., The Outranking Approach and the Foundations of ELECTRE Methods. In: Bana e Costa, C.A. (Ed.), Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid. Springer, Heidelberg, 1990. pp. 115-184.
  16. ROY, B., D. BOUYSSOU, Comparison, sur un cas précis, de deux modéles concurrents d’aide á la décision, Université de Paris-Dauphine, Document du LAMSADE, no. 22, 1983, p. 102.
  17. ROY, B., D. BOUYSSOU, Aide Multicritère à la Décision: Méthodes et Cas, 1993, Economica, Paris.
  18. BANIAS, G., C. ACHILLAS, C. VLACHOKOSTAS, N. MOUSSIOPOULOS, S. TARSENIS, Assessing Multiple Criteria for the Optimal Location of a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Facility, Building and Environment, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 2317-2326.
  19. MROZ, T. M. Multicriteria Aided Design of Integrated Heating-Cooling Energy Systems in Buildings, Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, vol. 60, no. 8, 2010, pp. 949-958.
  20. RADZISZEWSKA-ZIELINA, E., Methods for Selecting the Best Partner Construction Enterprise in Terms of Partnering Relations, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, vol. 16, no. 4, 2010, pp. 510-520.
  21. AGUILERA, V., N. BHOURI, N. FARHI, F. LEURENT, R. SEIDOWSKY, Planning of an Integrated Urban Transportation System based on Macro – Simulation and MCDM/A Methods, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5th Meeting of the EURO Working Group on Transportation, September 2012, Paris, vol. 54, 4 October 2012, pp. 567-579.
  22. STEVOVIĆ S. M., Z. D. MILOVANOVIĆ, V. A. MILAJIĆ, New Methodological Approach in Techno-Economic and Environmental Optimization of Sustainable Energy Production, Thermal Science,vol. 14, no. 3, 2010, pp. 809-819.
  23. HWANG, C. L., K. YOON, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, 1981, Berlin.
  24. OPRICOVIC, S. Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems, Technical report, 1998, Belgrade.
  25. OPRICOVIC, S., G. H. TZENG, Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, The European Journal of Operational Research, 156, 2004, pp. 445-455.
  26. AIS (Architekten informations system), Sparen mit neuem Dämmplattenkonzept (in German), Available from: http://www.ais-online.de/sparen-mit-neuem-daemmplattenkonzept-22206/neuheit.html, 2013 (accessed 06.09.13).
  27. SWISSPOR, Swisspor LAMBDA Vento, Available from: http://www.swisspor.com/index.php?section=datasheet&cmd=planningPage&id=4886, 2013 (accessed 11.09.13).
  28. PAROC, Paroc akmens vatos gaminių kainynas 2013 (statybinė izoliacija), Available from: http://www.paroc.lt/darbui-ir-informacijai/~/media/Files/Brochures/Lithuania/BI_Pricelist_full_2013-08_LT.ashx, 2013 (accessed 06.09.13).
  29. DALKEY, N., O. HELMER, An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts, Journal of the Institute of Management Science, vol. 9, no. 3, 1963, pp. 458-467.
  30. STOTHERM, Architect’s Façade Manual. Products and Systems. Details. Solutions, Available from: http://www.sto.co.uk/webdocs/0212/ebooks/facades_binder/flash.html#/1/, 2013 (accessed 06.09.13).
  31. KERSULIENE, V., Z. TURSKIS, Integrated Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making Model for Architect Selection, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 17, no. 4, 2011, 645-666.

https://doi.org/10.24846/v22i4y201301