A Team (a model with a total of at least 10 GK, SH, DS, and DMs). 1. Visual representation2. A discussion of how the model was builtOur starting point for building the water team’s model was the Green Dorm team modelfound on the 215 project website. We then brainstormed within the Water System Groupto sort out which stakeholders would be specifically involved in elaborating the watersystem and which ones would not.The model is divided in three levels of precision. The first spells out four categories(Gatekeepers, Stakeholders, Designers and Decision Makers) that will have very distinctroles when designing the water system. The second level actually describes what actorsare involved in each category. The third level adds additional precision by naming thefaculty and engineering firms who will be key in devising the options.3. A discovery or insightAs you can see in the visual representation, the second level of the teams model doesnot coincide exactly with the first level categories. We felt that the School of EngineeringResearch Teams were designers and stakeholders at the same time. This is similar to theCEE faculty contributing to the Y2E2 building; here the consulting faculty will also beusing the Green Dorm for research if the Living Lab option is chosen. In order to represent this duality, we chose to represent the School of EngineeringResearch teams in purple, a mix of the Stakeholders’ blue and of the Designers’ red.B Goals (minimum: 9 lower-level goals aggregated into three higher level goals, metric defined foranalysis values 3 to – 3 for each goal).1. Visual representation2. A discussion of how the model was builtWe chose to keep the 4 main goals from the Feasibility Study so as to allow our analysesto be consistent with the rest of the work done on the Green Dorm. We then subdividedeach of these 4 main goals into second and third-level goals which could be used toassess our options. The 3rd tier covers the metrics use to evaluate the goals. Somemetrics were based on surveys, other on collected data.3. A discovery or insightWe found that it was difficult to come up with metrics for some of our goals. Forinstance, one of the main goals from the students’ perspective is that the Green Dormshould be a popular row house. However this was hard to quantify. During his lecture onDecision Analysis, John Chachere did mention that the popularity of housing could beassessed by looking at the lottery preferences of applicants. This, however, could only bedone retroactively for the Green Dorm, which means this method in inapplicable forMACDADI. We are left with a dilemma: we would like to choose only goals with clear metricsattached; however easy metrics do not make one goal more valid than another. Some ofour most important goals cannot easily be quantified: this is a limitation of the MACDADIapproach. Nonetheless, we cannot discard these goals either, lest we completelyinvalidate the MACDADI process.C Preferences (for all of the stakeholders).1. Visual representation (Show at least two relevant visualizations of the preferences).2. A discussion of how the model was builtThe preferences were simulated for all the stakeholders by our Water System Group. Weinput them into the MACDADI spreadsheet, then we extracted the graphs above.The first is pretty much just a graphic illustration of the spreadsheet. Each columnrepresents one stakeholder, and his preferences for each goal are shown on the stackedcolumn. Each column reaches 100, which is the amount of point each stakeholder had toallocate.The second graph is the reverse of the first one. Each column shows the cumulativepreferences for it by all the stakeholders. This is done before the stakeholders areweighted, but it gives nevertheless a good impression of what goals matter most tothem.3. A discovery or insightThese visualizations show how important is it to weight the stakeholders. For instance,our teams model has taken into account the President, the Provost and the Board ofTrustees. This is normal because all these people will be involved in the Green Dorm.Nonetheless, one can imagine their goals will be quite aligned. Therefore, by treatingthem as three different stakeholders, whereas all the students are only one stakeholdergroup, our process is given them a lot of weight. One only need to look at their combinedinfluence on Liability and Life Cycle Cost to understand how this representation can skewthe result in favor of limiting costs.D Options (show at least images and a textual description of the options in your decision).1. Visual representation2. A discussion of how the model was builtWe decided to present five design options. The baseline option was the Baseline Green,meaning only going for commonly used water-efficient features such as low-flow showerheads, taps, toilets, economical washing machines etc.The second option adds a Greywater Treatment system. Greywater is all the used waterthat is not dishwater or toilet water.The third option builds off the second and adds a rainwater catchment system with a5,500 gallon tank as described in the Feasibility Study.Options 4 and 5 include a blackwater treatment: option 4 uses the ZeeWeed® membraneblackwater filter manufactured by GE; option 5 implements Professor Craig Criddle’sanaerobic digester. However Professor Criddle told us the digester initially would onlytreat water with food scraps.3. A discovery or insightWhile we did flesh out and analyze five options, this does not come close to cover thewhole range of possibilities. During an earlier lecture, Professor Haymaker mentionedthat the space of options was theoretically infinite, however we realized than in practiceit was quite limited since for each option we had to perform detailed analyses.E Analyses (provide the score and a rationale for each option, for each goal).We had nine equally established goals that were valued in the analysis. Goal values were derivedfrom metric sets. Some goal values, like Experimentation & Demonstration, were determined by singlemetrics. Other goals used combinations of multiple metrics in order to determine their values. MaterialResources, for example, utilized the metrics of 1) Design for Disassembly/Reuse in combination with 2)Optimize Material Resources. The two individual metrics were scored on a
View Full Document
Unlocking...