A Team a model with a total of at least 10 GK SH DS and DMs 1 Visual representation 2 A discussion of how the model was built Our starting point for building the water team s model was the Green Dorm team model found on the 215 project website We then brainstormed within the Water System Group to sort out which stakeholders would be specifically involved in elaborating the water system 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 distinct roles when designing the water system The second level actually describes what actors are involved in each category The third level adds additional precision by naming the faculty and engineering firms who will be key in devising the options 3 A discovery or insight As you can see in the visual representation the second level of the teams model does not coincide exactly with the first level categories We felt that the School of Engineering Research Teams were designers and stakeholders at the same time This is similar to the CEE faculty contributing to the Y2E2 building here the consulting faculty will also be using 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 Engineering Research 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 for analysis values 3 to 3 for each goal 1 Visual representation 2 A discussion of how the model was built We chose to keep the 4 main goals from the Feasibility Study so as to allow our analyses to be consistent with the rest of the work done on the Green Dorm We then subdivided each of these 4 main goals into second and third level goals which could be used to assess our options The 3rd tier covers the metrics use to evaluate the goals Some metrics were based on surveys other on collected data 3 A discovery or insight We found that it was difficult to come up with metrics for some of our goals For instance one of the main goals from the students perspective is that the Green Dorm should be a popular row house However this was hard to quantify During his lecture on Decision Analysis John Chachere did mention that the popularity of housing could be assessed by looking at the lottery preferences of applicants This however could only be done retroactively for the Green Dorm which means this method in inapplicable for MACDADI We are left with a dilemma we would like to choose only goals with clear metrics attached however easy metrics do not make one goal more valid than another Some of our most important goals cannot easily be quantified this is a limitation of the MACDADI approach Nonetheless we cannot discard these goals either lest we completely invalidate 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 built The preferences were simulated for all the stakeholders by our Water System Group We input them into the MACDADI spreadsheet then we extracted the graphs above The first is pretty much just a graphic illustration of the spreadsheet Each column represents one stakeholder and his preferences for each goal are shown on the stacked column Each column reaches 100 which is the amount of point each stakeholder had to allocate The second graph is the reverse of the first one Each column shows the cumulative preferences for it by all the stakeholders This is done before the stakeholders are weighted but it gives nevertheless a good impression of what goals matter most to them 3 A discovery or insight These 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 of Trustees 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 treating them as three different stakeholders whereas all the students are only one stakeholder group our process is given them a lot of weight One only need to look at their combined influence on Liability and Life Cycle Cost to understand how this representation can skew the result in favor of limiting costs D Options show at least images and a textual description of the options in your decision 1 Visual representation 2 A discussion of how the model was built We 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 shower heads taps toilets economical washing machines etc The second option adds a Greywater Treatment system Greywater is all the used water that is not dishwater or toilet water The third option builds off the second and adds a rainwater catchment system with a 5 500 gallon tank as described in the Feasibility Study Options 4 and 5 include a blackwater treatment option 4 uses the ZeeWeed membrane blackwater filter manufactured by GE option 5 implements Professor Craig Criddle s anaerobic digester However Professor Criddle told us the digester initially would only treat water with food scraps 3 A discovery or insight E While we did flesh out and analyze five options this does not come close to cover the whole range of possibilities During an earlier lecture Professor Haymaker mentioned that the space of options was theoretically infinite however we realized than in practice it was quite limited since for each option we had to perform detailed analyses 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 derived from metric sets Some goal values like Experimentation Demonstration were determined by single metrics Other goals used combinations of multiple metrics in order to determine their values Material Resources 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 scale of 3 3 and their combined scores were averaged to produce an overall 3 3 score for the goal The material resources goal is determined by both the Designed for Adaptability Deconstruction goal as well as the Optimize Material Resources
View Full Document
Unlocking...