Future State Narrative A General Services Administration GSA Border Station Team The team model Figure 1 was built to represent each entity s respective influences on the project All were selected from project documentation afforded the Stanford Research team and built upon by federal project experiences shared by the members of the team The teams are purposely represented in a weighted configuration with the Owners being at the top from which the requirements are derived and the ultimate decisions on scope and budget will default GSA Border Station Final ppt The Stakeholders are represented just below the Owners The Stakeholders are comprised of the various facilities occupants whose operations dictate design considerations The Designers group includes all the disciplines that are currently involved at the conclusion of the concept design phase and are expected to remain the same through the remaining design phases Finally the Gatekeepers are comprised of entities that hold laws codes or other regulatory devices ranging from operational safety to environmental responsibility and who have the power to halt or significantly alter the project course CEE215 Autumn 2008 Page 1 of 14 Future State Analysis Figure 1 GSA Border Station Project Teams Discovery As the number of stakeholders increase the varied goals and preferences would tend to become overwhelming and lower stakeholders weight of influence on the resulting decision Should this be detrimental to the decision analysis the list can be scrubbed to eliminate those minimally impacted Alternatively stakeholder weighting may be appropriate if leverage is required to tilt the MACDADI output values As the most desirable outcome is subjective for each project weighting of stakeholders requires careful consideration as to not jeopardize its perceived legitimacy Weighting will be discussed in greater detail in section F but is mentioned here in relation to building the team model B GSA Border Station Goals The GSA Border Station goals Figure 2 were pulled from the Final Concept Narrative provided by the GSA design team The triple bottom line is utilized as a framework of parent goals to categorize project sub goals The Stanford Research team in acknowledgment of the fact that many of these goals impact more than one aspect of the triple bottom line chose to categorize sub goals by the primary impact on CEE215 Autumn 2008 Page 2 of 14 Future State Analysis economics the environment or social environment Figure 2 GSA Border Station Goals and Metrics The goals metrics in figure 2 were determined by establishing the baseline as business as usual BAU For our project business as usual was Ceramic Metal Halide CMH because the GSA border patrol design guide currently dictates its use Therefore any viable options would be measured against CMH for minimizing first costs lower maintenance and operations costs and light pollution The Stanford Student team determined that since optimum light quality can be determined with respect to wavelength the optimum wavelength of 450 520nm is defined as 3 The point range to 3 6 points in total would be populated with incremental acceptable wavelength shifts of 60nm outside the optimum wavelength range of 450 520nm Discovery Assigning metrics for goals that are not easily quantifiable such as aesthetics is difficult Aesthetics is a popular qualitative example MACDADI requires quantifiable input and the key is assigning metrics that will result in stratification of the options By breaking the goal into three discrete questions on separate aspects related to the goal each option receives a point for each successful CEE215 Autumn 2008 Page 3 of 14 Future State Analysis aspect be decremented for negative aspects and receive no points for neutral aspects Three successful aspects would thus result in a 3 C GSA Border Station Preferences As a result of the project timeline and limited interface with the GSA project team Stakeholder preferences were assigned by the Stanford Research team They were assigned according to each stakeholder s perspective and would likely change should the stakeholders assign their own preferences Figure 3 Aggregated Preferences The graph above shows the aggregate of all stakeholders into parent groups to determine what is important to owners stakeholders and designers Two specific points of interest are the importance of total cost to the owners and the importance of optimizing quality of light for the stakeholders In figure 4 preferences are shown with respect to each owner stakeholder and designer The importance of light quality to the stakeholder s in Figure 3 is better explained as being influenced by facility occupants shown in Figure 4 CEE215 Autumn 2008 Page 4 of 14 Future State Analysis Figure 4 Goal Preferences by Stakeholder Insight It is recommended that the next class request preferences be assigned by the project group to increase the legitimacy of the MACDADI results from their perspective and receive stakeholder buy in D GSA Border Station Design Options Figure 5 Lighting Options Phillips Metal Halide LED The Stanford Research team was asked to explore two specific exterior lighting options for the Border Station with respect to performance and energy consumption The options provided were conventional Ceramic Metal Halide CMH lighting or Light Emitting Diode LED lighting Additionally the GSA design CEE215 Autumn 2008 Page 5 of 14 Future State Analysis guide is under revision and specifically lowers the required exterior lighting levels for Border Patrol stations As a result two additional options were included at the proposed lower lighting levels In total the four options explored were 1 CMH at current design standards 2 LED at current design standards 3 CMH at proposed design standards and 4 LED at proposed design standards Discovery The light intensity of the LEDs would require multiple fixtures to equal the lumen output of a single CMH fixture As a result of this discovery the Stanford Research team would build and analyze a 3 dimensional model to meet the required illuminances and then use take offs to determine the adequate number of fixtures and their locations The resulting analysis is discussed further in section E E Analyses The Stanford Research team utilitized a three dimensional CAD file provided by the design team to model exterior lighting performance options in AGI32 IES files for the LED lights specified in the Final Designs Concept Report were obtained
View Full Document
Unlocking...