Gade, A N; Jensen, R L; Larsen, T S; Nissen, S B and Andresen, I (2021) Value-based decision making in the pre-design stage of sustainable building renovation projects–exploring two methods for weighting criteria. International Journal of Construction Management, 21(6), pp. 648-663. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
Renovating our existing building stock holds a great potential. However, as the complexity of renovation projects is high, multi-criteria decision-making methods can support the decision makers throughout the renovation process. This study explores two value-based decision-making methods: the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and weighting, rating and calculating (WRC), in how they support decision makers in weighting criteria in the pre-design stage of building renovation projects. Participants from a Danish municipality were given the task of applying AHP and WRC to prioritize a set of renovation criteria. Four themes were analyzed: (1) practical applicability and decision transparency, (2) reflection and learning, (3) satisfaction with the final decision and (4) comparison to the original decision process. The results indicate that applying a formal weighting method in the pre-design stage of renovation projects increases the reflection, learning, transparency and satisfaction with the group decision outcome among the participants.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytic hierarchy process; decision support; multi-criteria decision making |
| Index terms: | multi-criteria decision-making, decision process, transparency, decision support, complexity, reflection, satisfaction, building stock, renovation, decision-making, design stage, building renovation, sustainable building, value-based decision, municipality |
| Subjects: | sustainable construction, decision analysis, administrative law, asset management, professional practice, systems engineering, renovation and retrofit, professional development, tendering, project delivery |
| Topics: | Information Management, Project Management, Legal Issues, Business Strategy, Procurement, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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