CIP A 2003 XIX th International Symposium, 30 September - 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey 
(1) Obtain S, the summation of maximum (theoretical) 
rankings. This is the hypothetical case when a method is 
ranked third (last) in the 13 contextual factors. S will then be 
39 (3x13). There is only one universal S (39) in the data 
processing function. 
(2) Obtain XI, the summation of actual rankings for each 
method. This is the “summation of actual rankings” in the last 
row of Table 1. 
XI for HM 
XI forEP 
XI for RP 
25 
27 
24 
(3) Obtain X2, the difference of the summation of maximum 
rankings (S) and the summation of actual rankings (XI) for 
each method. For example, for HM, the difference is 39-25 = 
14. 
X2 for HM 
X2 for EP 
X2 for RP 
39-25 =14 
39-27= 12 
39-24= 15 
(4) Obtain X3, the ratio of X2 to S. For example, for HM, the 
ratio is 14 to 39 = 0.359. 
X3 for HM 
X3 for EP 
X3 for RP 
14/39 = 0.359 
12/39 = 0.307 
15/39 = 0.385 
(5) Obtain Pa, actual performance of each method. Actual 
performance is the product of X3 and method optimal 
performance, Po. According to 2.2 Performance Standards, 
accuracy optimal performances for HM, EP, and RP are 0.80, 
0.70, and 0.90 respectively. To obtain Pa for HM, for example, 
it would be (0.359) x (0.80) = 0.2872 
Pa for HM 
Pa for EP 
Pa for RP 
0.359x0.80 = 
0.307x0.70 = 
0.385x0.90 = 
0.2872 
0.2149 
0.3465 
The decimal figures for the actual performance of the three 
methods represent—directly, not inversely—the relative 
accuracy of the three methods. 
(6) Transform the relative actual accuracies of the three 
methods for meaningful comparison. In other words, relate 
these accuracies to some sort of accuracy scale. 
a. Isolate the highest of the three relative accuracies; this is 
the RP accuracy of 0.3465 
b. Employ the “highest relative accuracy” (0.3465) to find 
the “absolute” accuracy. 
Since the “highest relative accuracy” (0.3465) has been 
established as 90% of absolute accuracy, the absolute accuracy 
in decimal terms will be: 
(100/90)x(0.3465)=0.3850 
c. Express each method “relative accuracy” in terms of 
absolute accuracy—to find Pa: 
For HM, accuracy Pa: 
(0.2872/0.3850)x(100)=74.597% 
For EP, accuracy Pa: 
(0.2249/0.3850)x( 100)=58.415% 
For RP, accuracy Pa: 
(0.3465/0.3850)x(100)=90.000% 
Pa for HM 
Pa for EP 
Pa for RP 
74.597% 
58.415% 
90.000% 
The percentage expressions above are the results of the actual 
accuracy assessment procedure. Once the actual thoroughness 
assessment procedure and actual rate assessment procedure 
have been completed (as mentioned above, they are not part of 
the discussion), the results of the three sub-procedures can then 
be listed as follows. 
Method 
Actual 
Accuracy 
Performance 
Actual 
Thoroughness 
Performance 
Actual 
Rate 
Performance 
HM 
74.597% 
EP 
58.415% 
RP 
90.000% 
4.1.2 Classify Actual Performance into Levels. An actual 
performance level scale will result. This scale equally applies 
to the three attributes of performance: accuracy, thoroughness, 
and rate. 
Level 
Description 
Level 1 
High, > 80% 
Level 2 
Medium, > 60% to < 80% 
Level 3 
Low, < 60% 
4.2 Required Performances 
At this juncture, the survey project’s required performances 
need to be determined. 
4.2.1 Establish Level Scales for Required Performances. 
This involves establishing level scales for the following: 
Required accuracy 
Required thoroughness 
Required rate 
Required performance for a survey project is a function of the 
purpose of survey, significance of the structure, and the 
urgency level of survey. Recalled from 2.1 : Survey Project 
Situation, these facets are as follows: 
Survey purposes: restoration, rehabilitation, preservation, 
and archival 
Significance of the structure: primary, secondary, and 
tertiary significance 
Urgency level: intense urgency, medium urgency, and 
light urgency 
The level scale for any required performance consists of: 
Level 1 (LI), high performance 
Level 2 (L2), medium performance 
Level 3 (L3), low performance 
4.2.2 Assess Required Accuracy and Required 
Thoroughness. Required accuracy and required significance 
are assessed simultaneously by correlating both purpose of 
documentation and significance of the structure as shown