CIP A 2003 XIX th International Symposium, 30 September - 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey 
For each factor, and based on anticipated effect, three classes 
are considered. To illustrate, consider the factor “complexity 
of building part surfaces: a measure of how much the building 
part surfaces depart from that of a plain and smooth surface,” 
labeled as BF4 in the previous study. The classes under this 
factor include the following: 
Class 1: Plain surface 
Class 2: Somewhat complex surface 
Class 3: Complex surface 
(3) Devise reference standards 
For each set of standards (say accuracy), assess comparatively 
the effect of all contextual factors on the performance of the 
three methods. Building on the results of the previous work, 
the effect of surface complexity will be as listed below. The 
numbers refer to rankings of methods, with “1” indicating the 
method is performing the best, or stated otherwise, the effect of 
the contextual factor is the least. 
Class 
Method 
HM 
EP RP 
Class 1: Plain surface 
0 
0 0 
Class 2: Somewhat complex surface 
2 
3 1 
Class 3: Complex surface 
2 
3 1 
Three sets of standards will result: 
Standards for assessing effect on accuracy 
Standards for assessing effect on thoroughness 
Standards for assessing effect on rate 
3. THE PROCEDURE’S DATA COLLECTION 
FUNCTION 
The procedure’s data collection function deals with collecting 
data about purpose of survey, significance of survey subject, 
urgency of survey, and contextual factors. Data collection 
efforts about the first three facets are geared to answer the 
following: 
For purpose of survey: whether the purpose is restoration, 
rehabilitation, preservation, or archival 
For significance of survey subject: whether the subject is 
of primary, secondary, or tertiary significance 
For urgency of survey: whether urgency level is intense, 
medium, or light 
The data collection effort about the (thirteen) contextual factors 
requires first hand, field examination of the building and its 
site, as well as access to climatic and weather prediction 
information. Here, the data collection effort is geared towards 
determining the “contextual severity” for each factor. For 
example, the effort involving the BF4 “complexity of building 
part surfaces” will end up with determining that the surface 
under consideration is either a) plain surface, b) somewhat 
complex surface, or c) complex surface. Let’s assume that the 
BF4 has been determined as Class 3: “complex surface.” This 
fact will be checked against the established performance 
standards to locate the performance comparative rankings of 
the methods in the accuracy, thoroughness, and rate attributes. 
Method rankings emanating from the BF4 scenario above will 
be as follows: 
Performance 
Performance Rank 
HM 
EP 
RP 
Accuracy 
2 
3 
1 
Thoroughness 
2 
3 
1 
Rate 
3 
1 
2 
Because there are thirteen contextual factors, the checking 
process will result in 
Thirteen accuracy comparative rankings of methods 
Thirteen thoroughness comparative rankings of methods 
Thirteen rate comparative rankings of methods 
Table 1 illustrates a hypothetical itemization of the thirteen 
accuracy comparative rankings of methods. Similar 
itemizations can be completed for thoroughness comparative 
rankings and rate comparative rankings. 
Factor and Class 
HM 
Rank 
EP 
Rank 
RP 
Rank 
Building Factors 
BF1, Height: C2 
3 
2 
1 
BF2, Size: C3 
1 
3 
1 
BF3, Condition: C2 
3 
1 
1 
BF4, Complexity: C3 
2 
3 
1 
BF5, Concealment: C2 
1 
2 
3 
Site Factors 
SF1, Size: C2 
1 
2 
3 
SF2, Topography: C3 
1 
2 
3 
SF3, Obstructions: C2 
1 
2 
3 
Climatic Factors 
CF1, Temperature: C3 
3 
2 
1 
CF2, Humidity: C3 
3 
2 
1 
CF3, Wind: C2 
3 
2 
1 
CF4, Precipitation: C2 
2 
3 
1 
CF5, Daylight: C2 
1 
2 
3 
Summation of Actual 
Rankings 
25 
27 
24 
Table 1: Hypothetical itemization of the thirteen accuracy 
comparative rankings of methods 
4. THE PROCEDURE’S DATA PROCESSING 
FUNCTION 
The procedure’s design handles data processing function under 
the following areas: 
Actual performances 
Required performances 
Actual performances versus required performances 
Method selection 
4.1 Actual Performances 
4.1.1 Assess Actual Performances. The steps below apply to 
finding the actual performance of each method in accuracy, 
thoroughness, and rate—in three separate procedures. 1 will 
discuss the accuracy actual performance assessment procedure 
only; thoroughness and rate performance procedures are 
similar. Simple tabulations support the discussion as needed.