## 3 Results
### Multi-Criteria Analysis of Variant Proposals for the Construction of the Administrative Building
Similarly, 100% of the criteria weight was also distributed at the next decomposition level of the significance tree. The conjunction of the weight of the criterion and the weight of the respective decomposition levels was the calculated weight of the criterion at the end of the branch of the significance tree. The resulting weights of all criteria that are included in the analysis are presented in red in the diagram in Figure 11. The criteria in the green rectangles are perceived as the most significant when deciding on the optimal variant of the construction system from a client's point of view. These criteria are the construction time, the lifespan of the building, and the quality of the environment during the use of the building. The weights of the individual criteria, determined by the Tree of Significance method, are shown in Table 5 together with the assigned grades. In both variants of the construction system, a grade of 1 or 2 was assigned to all comparative criteria. A grade of 1 means that the variant is better from the point of view of the given criterion, and conversely, a grade of 2 means that the variant is worse from the point of view of the given criterion. From this method of evaluation, the more suitable variant is the one with the smallest number in the sum. In the last column, for both variants, the relevant construction cost resulting from the cost analysis is presented. It is also crucial in determining a more effective variant. The last line shows the basic variant, in which it is indicated which value is more advantageous for each criterion. Since grades were added to the variants in the manner of 1 = better and 2 = worse, concerning the compared criteria, the basic variant line has a grade of 1 for each criterion. The evaluation of the criteria was carried out based on values and data obtained from the manufacturers of both structural systems, as well as based on estimated construction costs and estimated construction times. Figure 11: The significance tree for the criteria implied in this research. Then, the value of the base variant (value = 1) for each criterion was divided by the corresponding grade assigned to the given variant. This is how the index coefficient was calculated, which is listed in Table 6 instead of the grade. Thereafter, the total utility for each variant was calculated. The total utility value was calculated by adding the products of the relevant index coefficient of the criterion and the weight of the given criterion. The calculation example is as follows (Table 5). The weight of Criterion A (construction time) is 0.20. The grade for CLT construction is 1.00 (because the construction time is shorter, it is more beneficial). The grade for the timber column structure is 2.00 (because the construction time is longer, it is more disadvantageous). The value of the basic variant (value = 1) for each criterion was divided by the corresponding grade assigned to the given variant, thus calculating the index coefficient (Table 6). The weight of Criterion A (construction cost) is 0.20. The basic variant (value = 1): the grade (for CLT construction, it is 1.00) = 1:1 = 1 index coefficient. The basic variant (value = 1): the grade (for the timber column structure, it is 2.00) = 1:2 = 0.5 index coefficient. First, the product of the criterion weight and the index coefficient is calculated. Then, the total utility is obtained as the sum of these two products. In order to obtain a definitive result of the comparison of the proposed variants for the construction of a wooden administrative building, the efficiency rate was calculated (Table 7). The efficiency rate is obtained by dividing the total utility value by the construction cost of the respective variants. As a result, a higher value means a more efficient variant. In our study, this is the CLT construction system.