Tu, H and Jin, S (2024) A group decision-making model for architectural programming in megaprojects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 31(13), pp. 342-368. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Due to the complexity and diversity of megaprojects, the architectural programming process often involves multiple stakeholders, making decision-making difficult and susceptible to subjective factors. This study aims to propose an architectural programming methodology system (APMS) for megaprojects based on group decision-making model to enhance the accuracy and transparency of decision-making, and to facilitate participation and integration among stakeholders. This method allows multiple interest groups to participate in decision-making, gathers various perspectives and opinions, thereby improving the quality and efficiency of architectural programming and promoting the smooth implementation of projects. Design/methodology/approach: This study first clarifies the decision-making subjects, decision objects, and decision methods of APMS based on group decision-making theory and value-based architectural programming methods. Furthermore, the entropy weight method and fuzzy TOPSIS method are employed as calculation methods to comprehensively evaluate decision alternatives and derive optimal decision conclusions. The workflow of APMS consists of four stages: preparation, information, decision, and evaluation, ensuring the scientific and systematic of the decision-making process. Findings: This study conducted field research and empirical analysis on a practical megaproject of a comprehensive transport hub to verify the effectiveness of APMS. The results show that, in terms of both short-distance and long-distance transportation modes, the decision-making results of APMS are largely consistent with the preliminary programming outcomes of the project. However, regarding transfer modes, the APMS decision-making results revealed certain discrepancies between the project's current status and the preliminary programming. Originality/value: APMS addresses the shortcomings in decision accuracy and stakeholder participation and integration in the current field of architectural programming. It not only enhances stakeholder participation and interaction but also considers various opinions and interests comprehensively. Additionally, APMS has significant potential in optimizing project performance, accelerating project processes, and reducing resource waste.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural programming; group decision-making; megaprojects; methodology system; stakeholders |
| Index terms: | accuracy, entropy, megaproject, complexity, workflow, programming, integration, decision-making, methodology, decision-making process, fuzzy topsis, efficiency, transparency, stakeholder participation, interest group, interaction, implementation, project performance, effectiveness |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, strategic project management, programming, community and social dimensions, decision-making and optimization, thermal systems, systems engineering, behavioral psychology, organizational analysis, decision analysis, sociology, project management theory and practice, professional development, management, performance management, research methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Project Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here