Engineering scheme bidirectional comparison and selection evaluation method based on demand design hierarchical model

Abstract

The invention discloses an engineering scheme bidirectional comparison and selection evaluation method based on a demand design hierarchy model. The method comprises the following steps: S1, demand design hierarchy application; s2, determining a core index; s3, determining a third-level index; s4, carrying out overall score regression; s5, rechecking the design quality; and S6, determining an optimal scheme. Based on the Maslow demand theory and the Stevenbursa design theory, from the two aspects of scheme design and engineering construction, an analytic hierarchy process is applied to perform correlation quantification, a technical path is provided for objectively analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of different schemes, the objectivity of scheme comparison and selection is enhanced, more suitable and more creative schemes are eliminated, and the method is suitable for popularization and application. And huge loss of engineering and even engineering industry development is caused.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention relates to the technical field of civil engineering system evaluation, and in particular to a two-way comparison and evaluation method for engineering schemes based on a demand design hierarchy model. Background Art

[0002] The process of engineering design and construction often involves the comparison of multiple engineering schemes. Especially for some super-large projects, completely different engineering solutions often appear. Different schemes differ in various factors such as cost, adaptability, impact on the surrounding environment, and convenience of construction. Some have advantages and some have disadvantages, and these factors are interrelated. It is difficult to achieve objective comparison between different schemes through qualitative methods. In this case, it is often necessary to rely on the experience of experts or the selection of surrounding engineering schemes to determine the optimal solution. This method is highly subjective and often excludes some more suitable and creative solutions due to conservative thinking about engineering safety and stability, causing huge losses to the project itself and even the development of the engineering industry.

[0003] On this basis, different industries have begun to try to build corresponding evaluation systems for the screening of solutions. For this type of multi-attribute decision-making, scholars have created classic decision-making methods such as linear allocation method, simple weighting method, and hierarchical analysis method. Among them, the hierarchical analysis method has the advantages of simplicity, easy understanding, practicality, flexibility, and strong systematization. It is a more commonly used decision-making system and tool. The basic idea of ​​the hierarchical analysis method is to use a tree-like hierarchical structure to divide complex decision-making problems into several simple sub-problems at one level, and each sub-problem can be analyzed independently. The main steps are: establishing a recursive hierarchical structure model; constructing all judgment matrices at each level; hierarchical single sorting and consistency test; hierarchical total sorting and consistency test.

[0004] In this context, it is very important to combine the characteristics of the project itself and score each alternative more comprehensively and objectively. On the one hand, from the perspective of engineering, the functionality and reliability of the project are the main control indicators; from the perspective of engineering influence and engineering scheme design, the innovation of the project is more important and should be used as a control indicator. Therefore, Maslow's need theory and Steven Bradley's design theory are introduced here. Maslow's need theory is a psychological theory proposed by American psychologist Abraham Maslow in 1943. This theory mainly explores the relationship between human motivation and personal needs, and divides human needs into five levels, from basic to complex, forming a pyramid structure. Maslow believes that only when the lower level needs are met will people pursue higher level needs, taking this as the benchmark. Based on Maslow's need theory, Steven Bradley proposed the "demand design hierarchy" methodology in 2010. This method has been more used in product design, and a pyramid has been constructed from five aspects: functionality, reliability, practicality, additionality and creativity.

[0005] Based on this, the applicant refers to the demand design hierarchy and identifies the first-level indicators in the analytic hierarchy process as five aspects: functionality, reliability, practicality, additionality and creativity. Combined with the attributes of the project itself, the second-level and third-level indicators of the engineering plan are refined, and the third-level unified weight can be added from the two perspectives of project and product design. Starting from three directions, the weights are calculated using the analytic hierarchy process. Then score the third-level and second-level indicators to obtain a more objective overall score for different solutions. Finally, the optimal solution is determined based on the scores of the solutions obtained from three different ideas. Using this method, the influence of human subjective factors in the selection of solutions can be avoided as much as possible. Summary of the invention

[0006] The purpose of the present invention is to propose a two-way comparison and evaluation method for engineering schemes based on a demand design hierarchy model, which is convenient for practical application.

[0007] In order to achieve the above object, the present invention adopts the following technical solution:

[0008] A two-way comparison and evaluation method for engineering schemes based on a demand design hierarchical model comprises the following steps:

[0009] Step S1, application of demand design hierarchy: Based on Steven Bulla's demand design hierarchy theory, drawing on the five elements of product design, create five indicators of the engineering scheme selection system layer, which represent functionality, reliability, usability, adaptability and creativity respectively;

[0010] Step S2, core indicator determination: based on the five indicators at the system level, create core indicators that are suitable for the project itself;

[0011] Step S3, determine the third-level indicators: refine the attributes of the project itself, identify the most important and basic attributes, and allocate them to core indicators based on the attribute characteristics;

[0012] Step S4, overall score regression: give a relative score through comparison, and give a final score based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs;

[0013] Step S5, review of design quality: from an engineering perspective, more emphasis is placed on the proportion of high-level (adaptability, innovation), and the update calculations of steps S1 to S4 are performed to obtain a second ranking;

[0014] Step S6, determine the optimal solution: combine the design perspective and the engineering perspective to finally determine the optimal solution to ensure that the solution is the best solution from both the engineering and demand perspectives.

[0015] Compared with the prior art, the present invention adopts the above technical solution and has the following technical effects:

[0016] (1) Based on Maslow's need theory and Steven Bra's design theory, the present invention applies the hierarchical analysis method to perform relevant quantification from the two perspectives of scheme design and engineering construction, providing a technical path for objectively analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of different schemes.

[0017] (2) Compared with the expert scoring method, the average weighted method, and the simple hierarchical analysis method, the present invention further enhances the objectivity of the scheme selection to a certain extent, and more suitable and creative schemes are excluded, causing huge losses to the project itself and even the development of the engineering industry;

[0018] (3) The present invention is applicable to various engineering constructions and is a universal comparison method, especially suitable for major regional projects. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0019] In order to more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the drawings required for use in the embodiments or the description of the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying creative work.

[0020] Figure 1 It is a flow chart of the engineering scheme two-way comparison and evaluation method based on the demand design hierarchy model of the present invention.

[0021] Figure 2 It is a schematic diagram of the overall evaluation path of the engineering solution two-way comparison and evaluation method based on the demand design hierarchy model of the present invention.

[0022] Figure 3It is a schematic diagram of constructing an estuary gate evaluation system layer based on the demand design hierarchy theory according to a specific embodiment of the present invention.

[0023] Figure 4 It is a schematic diagram of system indicators corresponding to core indicators in a specific embodiment of the present invention.

[0024] Figure 5 It is a schematic diagram of a scoring case according to a specific embodiment of the present invention.

[0025] Figure 6 It is a schematic diagram of calculation results of a specific embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0026] In order to make the technical means, creative features, objectives and effects achieved by the present invention easy to understand, the present invention is further explained below with reference to specific diagrams.

[0027] See also Figure 1 Combined with Figure 2 , the figure shows a two-way comparison and evaluation method of engineering schemes based on the demand design hierarchy model, which includes the following steps:

[0028] Step S1, application of demand design hierarchy: Based on Steven Bra's demand design hierarchy theory, drawing on the five elements of product design, create five indicators at the engineering scheme selection system level, which respectively represent functionality, reliability, usability, adaptability and creativity.

[0029] In step S1, taking a river estuary sluice in Shanghai as an example, from the perspective of sluice engineering, functionality, reliability, usability, adaptability and creativity can be represented by five major elements: satisfying functions, safety and reliability, convenient operation and maintenance, respecting the environment, and pursuing excellence. Satisfying functions means that the product design can meet its most basic functions; safety and reliability means that the product is safe and reliable, and the functions are stable; convenient operation and maintenance means that users can use the project easily; respecting the environment means transforming based on the proficiency in product design, expressing what functions can be achieved in addition to the basic functions; pursuing excellence means creative design. On this basis, combined with Maslow's need theory, only when the lower-level needs are met will people pursue higher-level needs, so more attention is paid to the proportion of the basic layer (functionality, stability, operability), and the hierarchical analysis method is used to determine the importance ranking of the first-level indicators, and the proportion of the five major indicators is quantified.

[0030] Step S2, determine the core indicators: based on the five indicators at the system level, create core indicators that are suitable for the project itself.

[0031] In step S2, based on the five indicators of the system layer, considering the characteristics and features of the project itself, determine the core indicators that are suitable for the project, and determine the proportion of the core indicators in different system indicators. Taking a river estuary sluice in Shanghai as an example, satisfying the function means that the product design can meet its most basic functions, including tide blocking, navigation, flood discharge, environmental protection and other aspects in the river estuary gate project; safety and reliability, indicating that the product is safe and reliable, and the function is stable, including structural force safety, controllable failure probability, and stable riverbed scouring and silting in the river estuary gate project; convenient operation and maintenance, indicating that users can easily use the project, including intelligent opening and closing operation, timely and efficient maintenance, and complete backup plans in the river estuary gate project; respecting the environment, it is based on the proficiency in product design. It expresses what functions can be achieved in addition to the basic functions. The river estuary gate project includes improving safety resilience, adapting to climate change, and leading regional development; pursuing excellence, indicating creative design, and in the river estuary gate project, it means innovative design concepts and urban landmark buildings.

[0032] Step S3, determine the third-level indicators: refine the attributes of the project itself, clarify the most important and basic attributes, and allocate them to core indicators based on the characteristics of the attributes.

[0033] In step S3, when comparing the advantages and disadvantages of different solutions, it is often necessary to analyze and compare the most essential differences between the solutions. The best way is to quantify the most basic attributes of the project itself to ensure objectivity in the comparison of solutions and prevent the omission of excellent solutions due to human factors. Taking the estuary gate project as an example, starting from the most essential attributes of the estuary gate, such as realization, construction, maintenance, navigation, environment, reliability, and operation, the adaptability to frequent opening and closing, simple and efficient opening and closing system, opening and closing time, controllable opening and closing process, safe and controllable maintenance period, stable structural force, whether there is a single structure with large force, sensitivity to water flow force / vibration, sensitivity to countercurrent head, whether the equipment is flooded, whether siltation affects opening and closing, whether the opening and closing water flow conditions are stable, good tide-blocking effect, creating conditions for flood control, participation in emergency response, gate type innovation, scale innovation, other innovations, convenient construction, potential maintenance costs, whether there are actual cases, opening and closing costs, convenient maintenance, sill adaptability to navigation, gate height adaptability to navigation, opening and closing adaptability to navigation, whether a landmark is formed, water conservancy scenic area / cultural tourism museum, protection of the surrounding environment, enhancement of cultural value, feasibility of elevation increase, land occupation, etc. at least 32 indicators are compared, and the local comparison indicators are allocated back to the core indicators for scoring.

[0034] Step S4, overall score regression: give a relative score through comparison, and give a final score based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

[0035] In step S4, when scoring the essential indicators, a relative score method is selected to ensure fairness in the pros and cons of the schemes. 1 to 5 points represent relatively favorable, above average, average, below average, and relatively unfavorable. Different essential indicators are scored and finally weighted with the weights of the core indicators to determine the final scores of different schemes for comparison.

[0036] Step S5, review of design quality: From an engineering perspective, more emphasis is placed on the proportion of high-level features (adaptability and innovation), and update calculations of steps S1 to S4 are performed to obtain a second ranking.

[0037] In step S5, for key projects, from the perspective of scheme design, the impact of the project is often more important than the safety, stability and other indicators of the project. The project needs to reflect not only its own functional requirements, but also to some extent, as a surface building of the city, a core strength site, and an opportunity for the development of surrounding urban areas. Therefore, on this basis, the hierarchical analysis method is used to quantify the proportion of the system layer again, this time increasing the proportion of high-level indicators such as adaptability and innovation, and carrying out the work of steps S1 to S4 again to obtain the scores of different schemes from the design perspective.

[0038] Step S6, determine the optimal solution: combine the design perspective and the engineering perspective to finally determine the optimal solution to ensure that the solution is the best solution from both the engineering and demand perspectives.

[0039] In order to better illustrate the present invention, the following is a further detailed description in conjunction with the construction of a sluice gate at a river mouth in City A:

[0040] Example: The B River in City A crosses the urban area of ​​Shanghai, connecting the central lake of the basin and the open sea. It plays an important role in flood control, water supply, drainage, and shipping. It is an important river in City A and even in the large basin where it is located. It is known as the mother river of City A. There is no gate control at the estuary of this river. As the main river in the strong tide estuary area, its water level is affected by upstream floods, local rainstorms and downstream tides. Under the recent typhoon disaster, some sections have exceeded the warning level, and even the embankment has overflowed, the top of the embankment has overwhelmed the waves, and the wall has seen water seepage. Against this background, City A decided to build an estuary gate at the estuary to improve the overall flood control system of River B, so that the defense standard of River B reaches once in a thousand years. This gate is not only part of the flood control system, but also an important surface building in City A. It can lead the rapid development of the surrounding areas and play a very important positive role in the city's economy.

[0041] On this basis, the design team learned from excellent cases in various countries and combined with the local characteristics of City A, proposed a variety of solutions such as fan-shaped doors, herringbone doors, swing-opening floating suspended doors, horizontal sliding doors, pontoon flip doors, distributed bottom shaft driven flip doors, and connecting rod driven flip doors. Different door types have different advantages and disadvantages. How to select the best solution has become a direction that needs to be focused on.

[0042] Step 1, application of demand design hierarchy: Based on Steven Bra's demand design hierarchy theory, drawing on the five elements of product design, create five indicators at the engineering scheme selection system level, which respectively represent functionality, reliability, usability, adaptability and creativity.

[0043] In 2010, Steven Bradley proposed a set of useful and practical rules, the "Requirement Design Hierarchy", for creating new products and evaluating the design of existing products. Based on this, the project team built a requirement design hierarchy application suitable for sluice engineering design, as follows: Figure 3 It includes five levels: function, safety, supervision, environment and excellence, and the corresponding system-level indicators are pursuit of excellence, respect for the environment, efficient construction and management, ensuring safety and satisfying functions.

[0044] Based on this, the hierarchical analysis method is used to rank and quantify the importance of different system layers. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory, people will pursue higher-level needs only when the lower-level needs are met. Therefore, more attention is paid to the proportion of the basic layer (functionality, stability, operability). Therefore, the first round of system layer proportions are obtained, as shown in Table 1.

[0045] Table 1 Weight distribution of AHP method based on engineering perspective

[0046]

[0047] The data are shown in Table 2 below:

[0048] Table 2 Data meaning

[0049] 1 Equally important The contributions of both factors are equally important 3 Slightly important Experience and judgment slightly favor one factor 5 Quite important Experience and judgment strongly favor one element 7 Extremely important Actually showing a very strong preference for one element 9 Absolutely important There is enough evidence to absolutely prefer a certain factor

[0050] Step 2: Determine core indicators: Based on the five indicators at the system level, create core indicators that are suitable for the project itself.

[0051] Based on the five system-level indicators of pursuing excellence, respecting the environment, efficient construction and management, ensuring safety and satisfying functions, and combining the characteristics of the estuary gate, we determine the core indicators corresponding to each system-level indicator. Figure 4As shown, at the same time, the importance of each item is analyzed to determine the importance ratio of the core indicators in the system indicators, and finally the weight of the core indicators is determined, as shown in Table 3.

[0052] Table 3 Corresponding weights of core indicators

[0053]

[0054] Step 3, determine the third-level indicators: refine the attributes of the project itself, identify the most important and basic attributes, and allocate them to core indicators based on the characteristics of the attributes.

[0055] Taking this project as an example, starting from the most essential attributes of the project such as realization, construction, maintenance, shipping, environment, reliability, and operation, as shown in Table 4 below, at least 32 indicators are compared, including adaptability to frequent opening and closing, simple and efficient opening and closing system, fast opening and closing time, controllable opening and closing process, protection of surrounding environment, enhancement of cultural value, feasibility of elevation increase, and land occupation. The local comparison indicators are allocated back to the core indicators for scoring. Figure 5 shown.

[0056] Table 4. Bottom-level indicators and attributes

[0057]

[0058]

[0059] Step 4, overall score regression: give a relative score through comparison and give a final score based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

[0060] In scoring the essential indicators, we chose to use relative scores to ensure fairness in the pros and cons of the schemes. 1 to 5 points represent relatively favorable, above average, average, below average, and relatively unfavorable. Different essential indicators are scored and finally weighted with the weights of the core indicators to determine the final scores of different schemes for comparison, as shown in Table 5.

[0061] Therefore, based on Maslow's theory, that is, from the perspective of corresponding engineering construction, the optimal solution for the B River estuary gate is the fan-shaped gate, followed by the swing floating gate, miter gate, etc.

[0062] Table 5 Quantification results of AHP ratio based on design perspective

[0063]

[0064]

[0065] Step 5, review of design quality: From an engineering perspective, pay more attention to the proportion of high-level factors (adaptability, innovation), perform updated calculations of steps 1 to 4, and obtain a second ranking.

[0066] For key projects, from the perspective of scheme design, the impact of the project is often more important than the safety, stability and other indicators of the project. The project needs to reflect not only its own functional requirements, but also to some extent, as a surface building of the city, a core strength site, and an opportunity for the development of surrounding urban areas. Therefore, on this basis, the hierarchical analysis method is used to quantify the proportion of the system layer again, this time increasing the proportion of high-level indicators such as adaptability and innovation, and carrying out steps 1 to 4 again, and obtaining the scores of different schemes from the design perspective, as shown in Tables 6 and 7.

[0067] Table 6 Quantification results of AHP ratio based on design perspective

[0068]

[0069] Table 7 Quantification results of AHP ratio based on engineering perspective

[0070]

[0071]

[0072] Step 6, determine the optimal solution: Combine the design and engineering perspectives to finally determine the optimal solution, such as Figure 6 As shown in the figure, the scheme is guaranteed to be the best one in terms of both engineering and demand. Taking the B River Estuary Gate as an example, the best scheme is the fan-shaped door and the flat-hung floating door. As an international metropolis, City A can consider using the flat-hung floating door.

[0073] The above shows and describes the basic principles and main features of the present invention and the advantages of the present invention. It should be understood by those skilled in the art that the present invention is not limited to the above embodiments. The above embodiments and descriptions are only for explaining the principles of the present invention. Without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention, the present invention may have various changes and improvements, which fall within the scope of the present invention to be protected. The scope of protection of the present invention is defined by the attached claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. A two-way comparison and evaluation method for engineering schemes based on a demand design hierarchy model, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Step S1, application of demand design hierarchy: Based on Steven Bulla's demand design hierarchy theory, drawing on the five elements of product design, create five indicators of the engineering scheme selection system layer, which represent functionality, reliability, usability, adaptability and creativity respectively; Step S2, core indicator determination: based on the five indicators at the system level, create core indicators that are suitable for the project itself; Step S3, determine the third-level indicators: refine the attributes of the project itself, identify the most important and basic attributes, and allocate them to core indicators based on the attribute characteristics; Step S4, overall score regression: give a relative score through comparison, and give a final score based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs; Step S5, review of design quality: from an engineering perspective, more emphasis is placed on the proportion of high-level (adaptability, innovation), and the update calculations of steps S1 to S4 are performed to obtain a second ranking; Step S6, determine the optimal solution: combine the design perspective and the engineering perspective to finally determine the optimal solution to ensure that the solution is the best solution from both the engineering and demand perspectives.

Images