Figure 1
Design science research methodology process model with research and design activities.
Source: Adapted from Peffers et al. (2007).
Table 1
Background information about the interviewees
| ID | FUNCTION | WORK EXPERIENCE (YEARS) | PROJECT SIZE |
|---|---|---|---|
| DIR.1 | Director demolition and reverse logistics hub | 35 | All |
| DIR.2 | Director demolition | 17–20 | All |
| EST.1 | Estimator | 3 | Small/medium |
| PM.1 | Project manager | 8–10 | All |
| PM.2 | Project manager | 6 | All |
| PM.3 | Project manager | 30 | All |
| PM.4 | Project manager | 7 | Big |
| SIM.1 | Site manager | 10 | Small/medium |
| SIM.2 | Site manager | 15–17 | All |
| PE.1 | Planning engineer | 14 | All |
| PE.2 | Planning engineer | 5 | Large |
Table 2
Examples of requirements for each category used for the development of the decision-support tool (DST)
| ID | DESCRIPTION | CRITERION | PERFORMANCE | BANDWIDTH | PRIORITYa | SOURCE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Process and output of the design | |||||
| 1.2 | Present waste management strategy ranking based on evaluation criteria | Ranking | Present order | Based on evaluation criteria | M | DIR.1, PE.2, literature |
| 2 | Types of waste management strategies | |||||
| 2.1 | Waste management strategies relevant for demolition contractor | Strategy | Reuse, recycle and recover | Include all three | M | PM.1–2, PE.2 |
| 3 | Factors influencing decision-making | |||||
| 3.1.3 | Evaluate accessibility of building element | Accessibility level (three-point scale) | Assess level | Accessible, extra movement needed, inaccessible | M | EST.1, SIM.1, literature |
| 3.2.1 | Evaluate removal costs | Euros | Estimate | Include man-hours, machinery and equipment | M | All interviewees, literature |
| 3.3.1 | Evaluate environmental impact | Environmental Cost Indicator (ECI) | Evaluate | Use Dutch Environmental Database (NMD) | M | EST.1, PE.2, DIR.1–2, literature |
| 3.4.2 | Evaluate environmental nuisance | Nuisance level (three-point scale) | Assess level | Low, normal, high | M | Literature |
| 3.5.1 | Evaluate Building Decree compliance | Compliance (yes/no) | Evaluate | Complies, does not comply | S | All interviewees |
| 4 | Usability | |||||
| 4.2 | Use information commonly available to estimator and project manager | Information availability | Available | Material inventories, project visits, asbestos/chromium-6 reports and drawings | M | Observations, document analysis |
[i] Note: a For abbreviations, see the main text.
Table 3
Overview of the final criteria and their characteristics
| MAIN CRITERIA | DIRECTION OF PREFERENCES | SCALE AND UNIT | SUBCRITERIA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical feasibility | Maximisation | Qualitative (scores) | Demountability, manageability, accessibility, separability, technical quality, transportability, time spent |
| Economic costs | Minimisation | Quantitative (euros) | Removal costs, cleaning costs, direct revenues, indirect revenues, material handling costs and landfill costs |
| Environmental gain | Maximisation | Quantitative (Environmental Cost Indicator—ECI) | Impact due to (prevention) production, impact due to recycling raw materials in new products, impact due to waste processing |
| Social gain | Maximisation | Qualitative (scores) | Prevented environmental nuisance |
Figure 2
Flowchart of waste management decision-support tool design.
Figure 3
Overview of (spreadsheet-based) decision-support tool with Input (prioritisation preferences, eligibility questions and element characteristics), Process (impact evaluations linked to databases) and Output (suggested strategy ranking).