The success of a design lies in its ability to fulfill client values. However, the ambiguity in identification of values by clients renders the task complex and challenging. The investigation of the dynamics involved in stakeholder definition of the project values entails the need for research methods used in social sciences. This paper first presents the process of client value generation and evolution based on an ethnographic study of the architect selection process of two institutional buildings. The study consists of participant and non-participant observations of the project conceptualization and architect selection process. It is observed that along with client requirements incorporated in architectural design, the design delivery efficiency criteria of the architect have equal considerations in architect selection. Therefore, the values in Architecture Engineering and Construction (AEC) design can be categorized into Project Design Delivery Values (PDDVs) and Architectural Design Values (ADVs). The paper proposes a framework for the evaluation of design of a built facility using suitable Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) technique.
Arriving at a consensus in design decisions is challenging owing to the presence of diverse and multidisciplinary stakeholders with multiple design objectives. The literature on AEC design decision making have reported Analytic Hierarchy Process and Choosing by Advantages as two commonly used multi-criteria decision-making techniques for evaluation of design alternatives. However, the existing literature has mainly focused on choosing between material or technology and the comparison of the two techniques to assess the suitability for their application to non-spatial aspects of AEC design problem. The current work seeks to investigate the suitability of CBA and AHP to a layout design problem. A decision-making exercise involving a hypothetical case of evaluation of three classroom layouts was conducted. A set of criteria for design evaluation which was derived based on a previous study on stakeholder design values was used in the exercise. Conclusions were drawn based on the operationalization of the two techniques rather than a direct comparison of the results obtained from the two techniques. The findings from the study indicate that CBA aids in defining a robust set of design criteria, sub-criteria and attributes and facilitates a collaborative decision-making process. On the other hand, AHP provides a structured approach for eliciting individual participant judgments. The benefits and limitations with respect to the operationalization of the two techniques are discussed in detail. KEYWORDSChoosing by advantage (CBA), set based design (SBD), analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and target value design (TVD)
2 D e p art m e nt of Ci vil E n gi n e eri n g, A alt o U ni v ersit y, Fi nl a n d 3 D e p art m e nt of Ci vil E n gi n e eri n g, I n di a n I nstit ut e of T e c h n ol o g y M a dr as, I n di a vij a y al a x mis @iis c. a c.i n , k a n e. b or g @ a alt o.fi , si n g h v @iis c. a c.i n , k os h y @iit m. a c.i n A bst r a ct -
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.