Decision-Making Methodologies for Reuse of Industrial Assets

When there is a social consensus that industrial assets are in fact heritage elements of cultural interest, their conservation and reuse must be considered with approaches that offer greater guarantees and that prevent their exposure to aggressive actions. In order for this to materialise, many aspects must be included in the decision-making process, from the characteristics of an asset and its surroundings, to the valuable aspects that distinguish it and that must be protected. This study aims to develop tools that guide the decision-making process regarding the most appropriate activity for each specific case study. Multicriteria Decision Support Techniques are evaluated as adequate support to create a proposal that fulfils these objectives. Furthermore, the Analytic Hierarchy Process is adapted to develop methodologies for assessing both the heritage value and the most compatible uses according to the characteristics of the asset. Subsequently, they are connected and such considerations regarding the heritage value of the asset are incorporated into the final decision. The tools developed are then applied to a case study to test their performance, assess their usefulness, and identify possible applications and future developments.


Introduction
If it is accepted that industrial assets have heritage value, an increasingly widespread social perception, their conservation must be addressed. However, the conservation of something valuable must be respectful of that value, making it necessary to clearly identify its constituent parts. What is more, if y o uh a v eab r o a ds a m p l eo ft h es a m et y p eo fa s s e t st ob e conserved, the most important ones must be identi ed, as conserving the whole sample is not viable. If the original function of those elements has nalised and urban development in recent decades has le them out of place in their surroundings, such elements will require a new function that makes their long-term conservation viable. is new function, which the assets were not designed for and which will require certain adaptation, presents a risky scenario regarding the possible aggression that said adaptation may entail for their valuable characteristics [ ].
erefore, the adequate reuse of these types of heritage assets of cultural interest creates a scenario in which many aspects must be jointly considered. ere are many examples of the reuse for new activities of these types of assets that have led to the total destruction of everything that provided an understanding of the production processes they once accommodated. Industrial heritage illustrates our technological, production, and social evolution through the processes, equipment, and systems to which it bears witness. e aim of this study is to develop tools that guide the decision-making process of the most appropriate activity for each speci c case, avoiding the threat that many reuse actions entail for these assets.
In this context, Multicriteria Decision Support Techniques can o er the necessary support for the incorporation of structures of criteria that contemplate the di erent aspects to be considered and their simultaneous integration as decision factors [ , ]. Multicriteria Decision Support Techniques have been extensively studied and applied over recent years in very di erent approaches with equally varied objectives. ese techniques have been widely applied in the industrial eld in recent decades. Project management [ ], de nition of policies and strategies [ -], engineering of manufacturing processes [ ], and material selection [ ] are some of the scenarios in which these techniques have been present. However, their exibility allows them to be applied in many

Proposed Methodology
During the selection of the most appropriate decision support technique, the suitability of the Analytic Network Process (ANP) was considered as an alternative for carrying out this study [ , ]. However, the possible presence, or not, of cultural and heritage value characteristics in the industrial assets analysed does not a ect its new use suitability for housing another activity. e morphological characteristics of the asset determine its capacity to accommodate a speci c use. e independence of both criteria, heritage and morphological characteristics, and the interest of being able to analyse both aspects separately and jointly led to the AHP being selected for this study. e application of the AHP to achieve the objectives established in the study requires an adaptation. e hierarchical structure of criteria of this method means that the impact of the heritage value cannot be directly incorporated into the nal decision. A methodology based on three partial developments with di erent objectives, which can work both independently and jointly, is proposed. e ultimate objective is the incorporation of the heritage value in the selection of new uses, choosing the least aggressive or most respectful ones as regards said value. But this nal objective creates preliminary objectives. To protect the value of an asset, identifying the parts containing those singular characteristics and the intensity of such value is required. e singularity of an asset is implicitly associated with its singularity within the sample of elements of the same type. It is therefore necessary to have a su ciently representative sample of assets that have been properly analysed. Figure shows the structure of the global methodology proposed and the partial methodologies comprising it. e rst of the partial methodologies develops an extensive eld of study to identify a large sample of industrial assets in the territory focused on: Spain. As such, a catalogue has been prepared that includes classi cation criteria applied to all of the assets identi ed. is makes it possible to contextualise each particular asset in a sample and to perform varied analyses according to common characteristics such as type, production sector, and new use. e analysis of the sample at territory level, not just nationally but also in smaller territories, is another of outcome of interest o ered by this part of the methodology [ , ], enabling the characterisation of this type of heritage in di erent territories. e number of assets currently included in the catalogue produced by the authors exceeds elements. Once knowledge of the sample of assets is guaranteed, work will start on studying speci c assets: rstly relating to their heritage assessment, based on their cultural value, and then to the selection of the use, the adaptation of which being more respectful of or less aggressive on the value identi ed. As indicated in Figure , this is where the adaptation of the AHP as a Multicriteria Decision Support Tool comes into play. us, independent structures of criteria are de ned for each partial methodology. ese are subsequently connected t oe a c ho t h e r ,b a s e do nt h er e l a t i o n s h i p sb e t w e e ns o m eo f the criteria of both structures. Both structures of criteria and their connection are described below.
. . Structure of Criteria for the Heritage Assessment of the Assets Analysed. e rst step in the assessment of the heritage or cultural value of an industrial asset is to identify the characteristics that can contain said value. is entails identifying the asset aspects that have the greatest capacity to contain knowledge and to transmit it through observation of the places they are in. ese types of assets are valuable and representative from di erent perspectives, which is why the characteristics to consider are of a very varied nature. e role of these assets in technological and production development is evident. However, they also play a key role in social development today, from economic, demographic, social, territorial, and urban points of view. Similarly, as real property, their technical and formal quality must be taken into account, as well as their conception in relation to requirements and processes accommodated. e AHP enables simultaneous consideration of the di erent types of value characteristics, understanding them as the criteria considered for the analysis to be performed. e characteristics to be considered allow gradual phasing. In other words, aspects of a certain nature that must be considered can be identi ed and, within them, other more speci c aspects for each case too. e structure of criteria will therefore have di erent levels, corresponding to the classical structure of the AHP [ , ], in which the criteria and subcriteria considered will be distributed. Table shows the criteria and subcriteria considered initially for the assessment of the heritage value of the industrial assets. A brief description of the criterion considered is included in each case.
Two initial criteria levels are therefore established and identi ed as CR and CR . All these aspects are included in theheritagevalueassessmentoftheassetsanalysed.However, not all of them will have the same importance. As previously stated, situations were identi ed in which actions to reuse industrial assets would mean the disappearance of aspects that best connect them to the original production activity. Moreover, those actions would destroy the parts that best illustrate the production process that justi es the existence of the assets and their capacity to transmit the corresponding knowledge. e aim of this study is to avoid these situations. erefore, without discounting any type of characteristic, the aspects that best connect to the industrial activity are prioritised. Such an approach is also logical if we are talking about an industrial type of heritage. erefore,pairwisecomparisonsaremadeusingtheSaaty fundamental scale [ , ] shown in Table . ese judgements estimate the importance or contribution of criteria in relation to the objectives, which, in this case, relate to the singularity of the asset analysed.
is scale considers values from to , which range from the same level of importance or preference, to very strong dominance by one criterion over another .Intermediatevaluescanbeusedwhennecessary ,as well as inverse values when the dominance is in the opposite direction.
Considering the Saaty scale values, pairwise comparisons a r em a d eb e t w e e nt h ec r i t e r i ao fe a c hl e v e l ,m a k i n gj u d g ements on the importance that one criterion has compared to another in relation to the higher level of the structure. For CR criteria, this means the extent to which singularity is contributed to the asset. For CR criteria, the comparison Complexity T : Heritage assessment criteria.
CR -. Technological singularity e asset has production technologies of special interest, especially focused on machinery CR -. Technological exclusivity Its installations and equipment represent unique or representative examples CR -. Technological innovation Its installations and equipment represented pioneering applications of a technology CR -. Functional singularity e design of the asset has an interpretable and interesting relationship with the production process CR -. Layout e oor layout is meaningful and helps to understand the original production process CR -. Sizing of spaces e design of the spaces in terms of area and height is representative and helps to understand the production process CR -. Fitting out of the spaces e design of the light and sanitation conditions of the spaces is representative and helps in understanding the original production process CR -. Construction singularity e asset is created with noteworthy construction and structural techniques CR -. Structure e structural design is of special interest and helps in creating appropriate spaces for the production activities that it houses CR -. Construction technique e construction techniques are of special interest CR -. Architectural or artistic style e asset and/or its parts have noteworthy architectural or artistic styles CR -. Historical singularity e asset helps in signi cantly illustrating a particular historical or social aspect CR -. Socioeconomic impact on the setting It has signi cantly impacted the demographic, social, or economic development of its setting, where it may be possible to identify other elements related to it CR -. Production tradition It is included in a production activity rooted in the territory and in its cultural memory CR -. Antiquity Belongs to a historical period that gives it added value due to the scarcity of examples today CR -. Production singularity e asset represents an unusual production activity in its setting is made in reference to the contribution of value from the singularity of CR criteria with which the compared CR criteria are associated. ese pairwise comparisons are used to create the judgement matrices, which establish the preferences between criteria de ned by the decision-makers. Figure (a) shows the matrix that contains the judgements made when making comparisons between CR criteria regarding the rst level o ft h es t r u c t u r eo fc r i t e r i a . es e l e c t e dw a yt od e r i v et h e priority vector from this matrix is the eigenvalue formulation [ ] .
es o l u t i o ni so b t a i n e db yr a i s i n gt h em a t r i xt oa su ciently large power. In this case the process returns equivalent results for the components of the priority vector in thethirdandfourthiteration. eprocessthen nishesand the priority vector indicated in Figure (b) is obtained. During the formulating process of these matrices, the consistency of the judgements of the decision-makers is veri ed. Saaty establishes two parameters to assess each aspect [ ].
e rst one is the consistency index of the comparison matrix, which is given by CI = ( max − )/( − 1), where max is the eigenvalue of the matrix and is the matrix range. en the consistency ratio (CR) is obtained by comparing the CI with the corresponding value of the ones indicatedinTable . eobtainedvaluemustbelessthan . ; otherwise the judgements must be reviewed. e process is repeated in a similar manner for the judgement matrices for the second-level CR criteria. is leads to the distribution of weights for the CR and CR criteriashownintheupperpartofFigure .
As shown, the structure of criteria of Figure includes a new CR criteria level. e weights of the characteristics identi ed in the higher levels are constant for any asset analysed applying the proposed methodology. is will guide the assessment in making preferences regarding the aspects considered to be of greatest value, which in this case are those that best illustrate the original production process. However, although the importance of these characteristics, i nt e r m so ft h ea p p r o a c h ,w i l lb ec o n s t a n tf o ra n ya s s e t analysed, their presence will vary in each particular case study. us, the preferencing of criteria related to the value of the machinery has a greater starting weight than the artistic value, but the case may be that in one study all the machinery is kept, while, in another, it has disappeared. erefore, all the characteristics represented by CR criteria must be scored for each speci c case study analysed, with such need subsequently giving rise to the new CR criteria level. e question is how to undertake the assessment or scoring of each characteristic contained in CR criteria. For this,therearethreeaspectsorcriteriatobeconsidered. e rst refers to the intensity of the importance or value that that characteristic has in that speci c asset. e second refers to thecurrentstateoftheassetinrelationtosaidcharacteristic, which dramatically in uences the current capacity of the element to transmit the associated knowledge. e third regards the geographical singularity of the asset in relation to that characteristic. If there are similar examples in its territory, this singularity will be less than in cases in which it represents a unique or infrequent example. Of the three aspects incorporated in this new criteria level, the last two may vary over time and the scores will therefore change: the current state due to the degradation of the asset or its renovation, and geographical singularity when similar examples in the area disappear.
Furthermore, the impact of these aspects, such as the current state, does not a ect all the characteristics considered in the CR criteria in the same way. For example, the loss of parts of the machinery can signi cantly a ect its capacity to illustrate how it functioned. However, the degradation of roofs, enclosures, and other elements of the building have much less of an e ect on the capacity to interpret the size o ft h es p a c e so r o o rl a y o u t ,a sc a nb es e e nw h e nv i s i t i n g abandoned factories in a state of ruin. erefore, the comparison matrices for CR criteria, in relation to each of the CR criteria, are compiled in a similar way to the previous levels.
isiswherethestaticpartofthis rstpartialmethodology ends, with the weights of the CR , CR , and CR criteria established for any industrial asset analysed. As such, each CR referring to a CR will be scored, based on an assessment by a quali ed technician during the physical visit to the asset. To consider the proposed methodologies as work tools was one of the objectives of this study, facilitating their use and maximising their potential impact.
A ss h o w ni nF i g u r e ,i nt h i s r s ta d a p t a t i o no ft h e classical structure, the AHP alternatives are not included. e hierarchical criteria structure is established to provide a hierarchy of the di erent characteristics, which can give the asset singularity and result in it being deemed of cultural interest within this typology. From that common structure for any element analysed, and the scores given for a speci c case study, a reading is obtained of the heritage value of the asset and the weighted distribution of that value between the di erent characteristics in the di erent levels of the structure. Figure illustrates this distribution of weights within the hierarchical structure based on scores introduced by way of example. is allows for di erent analyses which will be explained in subsequent sections.    TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW  TW   to the new activity will have an impact on the asset. Based on that idea, the objective is to minimise the impact on characteristics that have heritage value. In practice, this is channelled in two ways: on the one hand, activities that require less adaptation of the asset will be of more interest; and, on the other, adaptations that a ect parts of the element without any associated value will be acceptable, although those that a ect parts with value will be restricted. is means that it is possible to talk about the analysis of two types of compatibility. On the one hand, direct compatibility is associated with the capacity of the asset analysed to accommodate the activities considered as alternative activities based on their morphological characteristics. And, on the other, modi cation is accepted in indirect compatibility, but not of the parts that have heritage value.
. . . Direct Compatibility without Consideration of the Heritage Value.
e criteria structure to consider must rst be de ned. Two types of criteria are considered in this study. e rst regards the morphological characteristics of the asset, which help in characterising its spaces and its capacity to accommodate new use activities. e second regards the institutional density of uses considered as alternatives in the setting of the asset analysed, in order to identify the level of current demand and possible synergies. e uses are considered as alternatives, derived from the asset reuse actions identi ed in the rst of the partial methodologies undertaken by the authors in prior studies [ , ]. Table  shows both the criteria and uses considered as alternatives. e comparison matrices are compiled for the criteria of each level of the structure in the same way as in the partial methodology for the heritage assessment of assets. In the rst level, whose criteria are identi ed as CR criteria, a strong priority of the characteristics of the asset is indicated as opposed to those of the setting, as these are the ones that indicate compatibility. A higher degree of preference to help ensure that the activity is better attuned to its setting and that the selection is successful has not been opted for.
As regards the next level's criteria, identi ed as CR criteria, equal weights or importance are established, regarding all the criteria in the corresponding group, for both the criteria associated with the asset and those associated with the setting. None have preference over others and, as such, the matrices are symmetrical, with all the values equal to the unit. e aimofthestructureconsideredistoanalysethecompatibility of the morphological characteristics of an asset with those required by a series of uses for correctly accommodating the activities. e preference, therefore, for one characteristic or another is established based on the uses according to the criteria, that is, from the alternatives, which prioritise some characteristics over others. However, preferencing cannot be established beforehand for those characteristics. Having open spaces does not take preference over having a lot of machinery. It will depend on the future use. It is the new uses that establish that preference for one characteristic or another. e presence of those characteristics in the asset and its s e t t i n gw i l la l s ob es p e c i cf e a t u r e so fe a c hp a r t i c u l a rc a s e study. Each asset will stand out for having certain characteristics and for not having others. us, just as outlined in the previous section for the heritage assessment methodology, these characteristics must be scored for the asset analysed. It will therefore be the CR criteria scores, for both the criteria associated with the asset and those associated with the setting, which determine the weight that these criteria have within the structure for each particular asset. Weights which will be a ected by the prioritisation carried out at the higher level, that is, the CR weight, are the ones in which greater importance was given to the group of criteria corresponding to the asset.
Finally, the demand made by the alternatives-that is, possible new uses-of each of the characteristics included in the CR criteria must be analysed. erefore, the corresponding matrices of pairwise comparisons are compiled.
is process is long and has guidelines and datasheets to assist decision-makers in the judgement-making process. A datasheet is prepared for each CR , which analyses the demand regarding the characteristic corresponding to each use. For each alternative or use, three elds on the typologies, archetypes, and the programmes of usual needs in the buildings intended for that activity are included. Decisionmakers, therefore, are encouraged to re ect on these three aspects before making their assessment on the intensity of the demand that that use makes of the CR characteristic analysed. e intention is to di erentiate between situations in which the characteristic is positive for the use and others in which it is vital. For example, open spaces free of obstacles may be appropriate for many activities due to the exibility they provide. However, they may be vital for sports, especially as some disciplines require open spaces for speci c activities. A clear di erentiation must therefore be made in the demand for that characteristic in terms of both situations. ese datasheets also aid the review of judgements made by decision-makers.
e assessments made are introduced from the datasheets in t h el e -h a n dc o l u m na n dt h eu p p e rc o l u m n .B a s e do nt h i s information, and thanks to its programming, the matrices are autocompleted. ey then multiply by themselves until the value of the priority vector is stabilised, following the same procedure described for the above comparison matrices. Figure (b) shows the result obtained in the h iteration of the process for the CR -matrix.
is procedure is followed to construct the matrices of the CR criteria associated with the asset analysed and the matrices of the CR criteria associated with its setting. Once the priority vectors of each of them have been obtained, the fundamental matrix of preferences is obtained, formed from the preference vectors obtained for each one of the CR criteria in relation to the uses considered as alternatives. e fundamental matrix is shown in Table . F i n a l l y ,b a s e do nt h es c o r e sg i v e nf o rt h eC R c r i t e r i a , the distribution of preferences for the uses considered is obtained. Figure shows the nal preference vector as a spider chart. us, for the scores of that ctitious example, the methodology would identify Use , sport, as the most compatible with the characteristics of the asset analysed. is distribution of the preferences obtained for the uses considered comes from working the fundamental matrix, which shows the demand relating to each use of the characteristics  represented by the CR criteria, by the distribution of weights of these criteria.
. . . Indirect Compatibility Considering the Impact of the Heritage Value. A er setting out the structure of criteria responsible for analysing the direct compatibility of the assets being studied with the uses considered, the mechanism proposed for incorporating the impact of the heritage value in the nal decision is then set out. As such, the rst step is to identify the possible link between the morphological characteristics of the asset, represented by the CR criteria, and the characteristics containing the heritage value, represented by the CR criteria, scored using the CR in the structure of criteria responsible for the asset heritage assessment. ese aspects of interest will be contained in physical parts of the industrial assets analysed. A relationship can therefore be established between the morphological characteristics of CR criteria, which materialise in certain physical parts of the asset, and the heritage characteristics of CR , which may be contained in those parts. Naturally, CR criteria related to the institutional study of the setting are not considered, because the heritage characteristics of the assets are not related to the density of uses in its setting, which cannot contain asset heritage value. Table shows the relationships considered in each case.
Having identi ed the relationships between both groups of criteria, the way in which the value identi ed in CR will a ect the weights of CR must be de ned. If value characteristics exist, the aim is to increase the weight of CR associated with the structure of criteria for the selection of new uses. If the weight of a CR that is highly demanded for a use versus others increases, that demand will be multiplied, so the preferencing of the characteristic in terms of that use wi thr e s pectt oo th e r swillal soi n c r ea se . i sal soi n c r ea se s its global preference as an alternative, as it demands high weighted characteristics in the structure of criteria. In this way, compatible uses with the characteristic that contain value and that does not demand its adaptation are preferred, avoiding the associated risk.
It is rstly necessary to de ne how to determine whether or not the value associated with each CR criterion on the morphological characteristics of the asset analysed is high; and secondly, how to channel the impact of that value on the updating of the weights of those CR criteria. As shown in Table , each CR criterion is associated with a di erent number of CR criteria. In each case the corresponding CR criteria will therefore be analysed from two perspectives. On the one hand, the scores obtained by each of them in the heritage assessment methodology are analysed. And on the other hand, their weight is assessed within the heritage assessment structure of criteria, or, rather, their capacity to contribute value to the particular asset being analysed. e rst approach compares the scores obtained for the CR associated with a certain CR with those of all the CR . is provides an illustration in each case of how those scores are within the total group of characteristics assessed for heritage purposes. Based on the scores given to all the CR criteria, the methodology de nes three intervals: high, medium, and low scores. So, for each CR the associated CR scores are considered, their mean is obtained, and the interval i nwh i c hi ti sl oca t edi si d e n ti ed . i sa n al y s i si sth e r e f o r e independent of the criteria for the industrial approach of the methodology, trying to identify relevant aspects of the asset without taking its nature into account.
Similarly, for each CR criterion, the contribution of heritage value that takes place through the associated CR is analysed.Onceagain,theco n trib u tio no fallCR cri teriais Complexity T : Relationships between the characteristics of CR criteria for the structure of assessment of compatibility with new uses, and CR criteria for the structure of heritage assessment.
CR . considered. is contribution is re ected in the weight that they have in the structure of criteria a er the characteristics theyrepresenthavebeenscoredfortheassetanalysed. us, considering the weighted weight of all the CR , three intervals are again established, from the lowest weight identi ed to the highest weight. For each CR , the mean weight of the CR associated with it is obtained and its belonging to one of the three value intervals is identi ed. is twofold analysis makes it possible to identify the relevance of the CR heritage characteristics, which in each case are linked to a CR regarding the set of heritage characteristics studied. Combining both approaches, it is possible to locate the heritage characteristics of the CR linked to a certain CR within a three-by-three classi cation matrix of possible scenarios. If, for both approaches, t h ec h a r a c t e r i s t i c sa r ei nt h ei n t e r v a lo fh i g hv a l u e s ,t h e heritage characteristics associated with that CR , regarding the rest of the asset heritage characteristics, are noteworthy. e opposite situation would be that in both approaches the characteristics were in the intervals of lesser relevance. Likewise, intermediate situations can be de ned between both extremes. Figure (a) shows the classi cation matrix.
is analysis makes it possible to associate belonging to a group within the classi cation matrix with a level of relevance. In turn, that relevance is associated with a coe cient that will act on the associated CR criteria to correct its weight in the structure of criteria, thus introducing the impact of the heritage value. Figure (b) shows the coe cients selected in this study. e use of the highest or lowest coe cients would mean increasing or decreasing the impact of the heritage value in the nal decision. Figure shows the structure of criteria to select the new use.
AsshowninFigure ,basedonthescoresgiventoCR criteria associated with both the asset analysed and its setting, a rst distribution of the preferences for uses considered as alternatives is made. is rst preferencing of uses corresponds to the direct compatibility already described. e impact of the heritage value is subsequently incorporated in the nal decision. Figure shows how this process only a ects CR criteria associated with the asset, not those of the setting, as already previously justi ed. Figure shows a partial and enlarged view of the structure of criteria. As regards each CR , how the corresponding CR are analysed under the two approaches described and the appropriate correction coe cient selected, based on the classi cation matrix, can be seen.On ceth eim pacto fth eh eri ta g eval uea s socia t edwi th each CR criterion is incorporated and their weights in the criteria structure are corrected, the values are normalised.
us, when the fundamental matrix illustrated in Table  operates on the distribution of weights of the CR criteria, the value of these weights includes the impact of the heritage valueidenti edintheproposedheritageassessmentmethodology. e preference vector ultimately obtained, therefore, di ers from that which the criteria structure returned before incorporating the heritage value in the decision, which was shown in Figure . CR criteria associated with CR criteria with heritage value increase their weight in the structure and, therefore, the preference for compatible uses with those characteristics, which are those that best protect them as modi cations, is not required. In turn, loss of weight in the structure of CR criteria not associated with value characteristics will enable uses not compatible with those C R t og a i nw e i g h ta sa l t e r n a t i v e s . i sc o r r e s p o n d st ot h e possibility of modifying the morphological characteristics of those CR criteria without heritage value.

Case Study Results
For their validation, the proposed methodologies have been applied to di erent real case studies. Set out below is an example of the application of one of the warehouses of the Richard Gans Printing Works in Madrid. e score required by the methodology of the CR and CR criteria to o er results requires a physical visit to the asset analysed and its thorough preliminary study. As is logical, outlining this previous phase would excessively extend the explanation of this study. However, as indicated above, the aim is to consider the proposed methodologies as tools, promoting their use in the study and management of these types of assets. at is why a description is provided in this section of the datasheets of results that the methodology generates automatically when entering the scores for CR criteria and CR criteria during the analysis of a real case study.  (c) show the datasheets resulting from the methodology for the selection of new uses. e areas of the datasheets where t h eu s e rm u s te n t e rt h es c o r e sr e q u e s t e da r eh i g h l i g h t e di n red and marked with an asterisk. ey are used to generate real-time result graphs. Generally, spider and bar charts that are considered complementary for their interpretation by di erent users are combined. ese charts are intended to aid interpretation of the results and are brie y described in Figure . At the top of the rst datasheet, shown in Figure (a), information is included on the catalogue of assets produced in the rst of the three partial methodologies developed [ ] and which is not covered by this study. is information helps in contextualising the asset analysed in the catalogue p r o d u c e da n dt h e r e f o r ei nt h es a m p l eo fa s s e t so ft h i st y p e identi edinSpain.
Inthesamedatasheet,totherightofthescoresrequested for the CR criteria, the distribution of weights for the element analysed is shown in both a spider and a bar chart. is distribution is compared to that obtained for a situation of maximum scores for all the criteria scored and with the preferencing of criteria established under the study approach, which prioritises aspects of a greater industrial n a t u r e . eb o t t o mp a r ts h o w s r s t l yt h e s c o r e sg i v e nt o each CR criterion relative to their interest, current state, and geographical singularity. e trend of the scores relative to the interest given to each CR is then compared with the weight of the criteria once weighted.
In Figure (b), under the scores for the CR criteria, the distribution of weights of these criteria, a er entering their scores, is shown as a spider chart. Both the weights of the CR criteria relative to the asset analysed and its setting are represented jointly on the le -hand side. ey are shown separatelyontheright.Atthebottomofthisdatasheetthesame analysis is shown as a bar chart. e distribution of weights of CR criteria considering the heritage value identi ed and without considering it is compared at the top of Figure (c).
Various spider charts on the preferencing of uses are included under this bar chart. ese charts show the main result of the proposed methodology. ey rstly show the preferences for possible uses, both excluding the impact of the heritage value on the decision and incorporating it. Both representations are completed with a representation that overlaps both distributions and allows us to see which uses increase their preference and which diminish it. Finally, at the bottom of the datasheet, both analyses are repeated, but independently representing the preferencing of uses obtained from the CR criteria relative to the asset analysed and those relative to its setting. is visualisation is useful when the distribution of preferences does not mark a single use as an outstanding alternative. In such cases, visualising the needs of the setting independently can help in making the nal decision. e adaptation of the AHP to the study of these assets has allowed simultaneous consideration of many aspects of a very di erent nature that must be taken into account in the decision-making process in this eld. e hierarchical structures proposed have made it possible to prioritise aspects of a greater industrial nature in the analysis of this typology, which is consistent with the origin of these assets, although t h a th a sn o ta l w a y sb e e nt h ec a s ew h e na c t i n go nt h e m . Incorporating the heritage value in the structure of criteria designed to select new uses helps in identifying those that most respect the heritage value and, therefore, that are more compatiblewithitsconservation. isistheachievementof themainobjectiveofthisstudy.

Discussion
In addition, the automatic generation of result datasheets helps in enhancing the role of work tools that the proposed methodologies are intended to have. Both the methodologies and results obtained have been presented to those responsible for the National Industrial Heritage Plan of the Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute, which reports to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport. is body has recognised the interest of the proposals described in this study and it has selected them under its Cycle of Conferences on Good Industrial Heritage Practices. e authors are currently analysing ways of developing a computer application that channels the use of the proposed methodologies, as well as new methodology developments. In that sense two main work lines have been de ned. On the one hand a massive application of the exposed methodology wants to be applied to the assets included in the extensive    Complexity catalogue developed by the authors. e potential that then the criteria structure has as a tool for the management of the assets of this typology in a particular area is considered of great interest. And, on the other hand, the authors are working on new developments of the methodology that allow multiobjective optimisation to be incorporated into new use adaptation proposals.