166
introduces a lot of variability to studies. Even though all three tools include stages
C2–C4, they may have different ways of handling these stages. Furthermore, all
three programs use a black-box approach to the majority of the LCA process outside
of the LCIA phase. Most of the work for the early stages is done by the programs
behind the scenes.
Beyond the ways in which the tools function similarly, there are relative advantages and disadvantages to each of the programs. Athena is the most accessible tool
both cost-wise and in terms of compatibility with existing design workflows. Athena
is free for all users, and because the user manually enters all of the information
about the building constructions and material quantities, it can integrate with any
design workflow. It does not matter if the project was completed by hand, using any
CAD program, or any BIM program. Athena also requires less specificity to the
material entries than the other programs, in favor of rule of thumb sizing, making it
easier to use early in the design process. The earlier in the design process that life
cycle thinking is applied, the easier it is to make meaningful improvements to the
design (Hester et al. 2018). The tradeoff of this is that Athena then offers the least
precise results of all three tools. The “Extra Materials” option in each assembly
group is a way to combat this. It allows users to add more precision to the study by
individually specifying additional materials that are missing from the assemblies.
Since Athena does not interface with any BIM software, as updates are made to
the project design, the user must go through and adjust all of the material quantities
and constructions manually, making it more time-consuming. Integration with BIM
is something that considerably drops the amount of time it takes to complete an
LCA study as well as makes assessing design options much easier (Bruce-Hyrkäs
et al. 2018). The capabilities and accuracy of these studies are directly tied to the
quality of the model that is being used. A thorough, clean model will yield accurate
results, but a messy or incomplete model can skew the results.
As a tool, Tally has a very intuitive interface that clearly presents the designer
with a lot of information. There is an emphasis on transparency, both in the consequences of decisions the user is making and on Tally’s methodologies and decisions
that are out of the designer’s hands. The PDF reports generated by both Tally and
Athena clearly outline the major parameters and methodologies of the study to
make the results easier to interpret. Transparency in reporting follows the guidelines
outlined in ISO standards 14040 and 14044, increases the credibility of the study,
and allows for more people to interpret and act on the results (Frischknecht 2004).
One Click LCA integrates this transparency into the web interface, but it is harder
to download and report with the results, unless using the LEED tool. However, One
Click LCA does provide the most transparency regarding LCI data. Overall, One
Click LCA has the steepest learning curve but the most functionality of the three
tools. One Click LCA is positioned in the global market by offering global LCI data
and integration with many different BIM software. Moreover, the ability to use the
web interface standalone allows for One Click LCA to integrate with any design
workflow without sacrificing precision. Furthermore, the company offers more
methods of evaluating a design than just LCA including LCC.
8 Dashboard
introduces a lot of variability to studies. Even though all three tools include stages
C2–C4, they may have different ways of handling these stages. Furthermore, all
three programs use a black-box approach to the majority of the LCA process outside
of the LCIA phase. Most of the work for the early stages is done by the programs
behind the scenes.
Beyond the ways in which the tools function similarly, there are relative advantages and disadvantages to each of the programs. Athena is the most accessible tool
both cost-wise and in terms of compatibility with existing design workflows. Athena
is free for all users, and because the user manually enters all of the information
about the building constructions and material quantities, it can integrate with any
design workflow. It does not matter if the project was completed by hand, using any
CAD program, or any BIM program. Athena also requires less specificity to the
material entries than the other programs, in favor of rule of thumb sizing, making it
easier to use early in the design process. The earlier in the design process that life
cycle thinking is applied, the easier it is to make meaningful improvements to the
design (Hester et al. 2018). The tradeoff of this is that Athena then offers the least
precise results of all three tools. The “Extra Materials” option in each assembly
group is a way to combat this. It allows users to add more precision to the study by
individually specifying additional materials that are missing from the assemblies.
Since Athena does not interface with any BIM software, as updates are made to
the project design, the user must go through and adjust all of the material quantities
and constructions manually, making it more time-consuming. Integration with BIM
is something that considerably drops the amount of time it takes to complete an
LCA study as well as makes assessing design options much easier (Bruce-Hyrkäs
et al. 2018). The capabilities and accuracy of these studies are directly tied to the
quality of the model that is being used. A thorough, clean model will yield accurate
results, but a messy or incomplete model can skew the results.
As a tool, Tally has a very intuitive interface that clearly presents the designer
with a lot of information. There is an emphasis on transparency, both in the consequences of decisions the user is making and on Tally’s methodologies and decisions
that are out of the designer’s hands. The PDF reports generated by both Tally and
Athena clearly outline the major parameters and methodologies of the study to
make the results easier to interpret. Transparency in reporting follows the guidelines
outlined in ISO standards 14040 and 14044, increases the credibility of the study,
and allows for more people to interpret and act on the results (Frischknecht 2004).
One Click LCA integrates this transparency into the web interface, but it is harder
to download and report with the results, unless using the LEED tool. However, One
Click LCA does provide the most transparency regarding LCI data. Overall, One
Click LCA has the steepest learning curve but the most functionality of the three
tools. One Click LCA is positioned in the global market by offering global LCI data
and integration with many different BIM software. Moreover, the ability to use the
web interface standalone allows for One Click LCA to integrate with any design
workflow without sacrificing precision. Furthermore, the company offers more
methods of evaluating a design than just LCA including LCC.
8 Dashboard