Level of 
Significance 
Purpose of 
Documentation 
Restor. 
Rehab. 
Preser. 
Arch. 
Primary 
LI 
L2 
LI 
LI 
Secondary 
LI 
L2 
L2 
L2 
Tertiary 
L2 
L3 
L3 
L3 
Restor. = Restoration; Rehab. = Rehabilitation; 
Preser. = Preservation; Arch. = Archival 
4.2.3 Assess Required Rate. Rate expresses the speed of 
survey operations. The more urgent the need for 
documentation, the higher the level of required performance: 
Intense urgency requires Level 1 rate of survey 
Moderate urgency requires Level 2 rate of survey 
Light urgency accepts Level 3 rate of survey 
4.3 Actual Performances versus Required Performances 
At this point, we have outlined how to obtain the following: 
The actual performance of each method in the accuracy, 
thoroughness, and rate attributes 
The required performance of the project in the accuracy, 
thoroughness, and rate attributes 
Proceed as follows: 
(1) Match actual performances of methods with the required 
performances of the project. A matching matrix would look 
like the following. 
Method 
Accuracy 
Thoroughness 
Rate 
Act. 
Req. 
Act. 
Req. 
Act. 
Req. 
HM 
EP 
RP 
Act. = Actual; Req. = Required. 
5. CONCLUSIONS 
A previous paper (Elwazani, 2002) investigated the effect of 
the contextual conditions on the performance of measured 
survey methods and ended with establishing a set of standards 
for evaluating such effect. The purpose of this paper was to 
devise a procedure for evaluating the performance of measured 
survey methods—into which the developed performance 
standards are integrated. To such end, this paper laid out a 
basis for the procedure and described the procedure’s data 
collection and data processing functions. 
The data collection function accounts for data about the main 
aspects of the survey project, including the purpose of survey, 
significance of the survey subject, urgency of survey, and 
contextual conditions. The data about the latter describes the 
conditions of the 13 building, site, and climatic factors. In 
types and extent of data, this function is designed to 
commensurately feed the “processing” steps in the subsequent 
data processing function. 
The data processing function is geared to produce actual 
performances of methods in accuracy, thoroughness, and rate, 
and then to compare actual performances with the project 
required performances. To produce the actual performances, 
the function begins with the methods performance values 
obtained from the developed performance standards. The 
function then makes use of the available optimal performances 
and absolute performance values by means of a series of simple 
equations to produce the actual performances. 
The remaining steps of the data processing function evaluate 
the survey project’s required performances before comparing 
them with the actual performances. These steps establish level 
scales for required performances in accuracy, thoroughness, 
and rate attributes and then, in a special assessment technique, 
show how these required performances can be determined. 
Once the required performances are in hand, steps for deciding 
upon appropriate methods follow. 
(2) Determine what methods would satisfy individual required 
performances. Building on the results of the above step, a 
plausible determination scenario would look like this: 
Required Performance 
Satisfying Methods 
Accuracy 
HM, RP 
Thoroughness 
RP 
Rate 
EP, RP 
4.4 Methods Selection 
Determine what methods would independently satisfy the 
entire set of performance factors. Referring to the preceding 
scenario, it is obvious that rectified photography (RP) is the 
only method that would, by itself, satisfy the entire set of 
required performances—for this part of survey subject. 
REFERENCES 
Elwazani, S. 2002. Effect of Contextual conditions on the 
Performance of Measured Survey Methods. In: Strategies for 
the World’s Cultural Heritage: Preservation in a Globalised 
World: Principles, Practices, Perspectives: Proceedings of the 
ICOMOS I3 lh General Assembly Scientific Symposium, 
Madrid, Spain, 1-5 December 2002, ed. the Spanish National 
Committee of ICOMOS, Madrid, Spain, pp. 17-20. Madrid, 
Spain: The Spanish National Committee of ICOMOS, 2002. 
LeBlanc, F. and Gray, C. 2002. The Getty Conservation 
Institute Proposed Partnership with ICOMOS-CIPA for 
Recoding, Documentation and Information Management. In: 
Surveying and Documentation of Historic Buildings, 
Monuments, Sites - Traditional and Modern Methods: 
Proceedings of CIPA 18 lh International Symposium, Potsdam, 
Germany, 18-21 September 2001, ed. Jorg Albertz, pp. 315-21. 
Germany, CIPA 2001 Organizing Committee, 2002.