Volker, L and Lauche, K (2008) Decision making during a tendering procedure: Case studies of restricted European tenders in architecture. In: Dainty, A (ed.) Proceedings of 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2008, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
As they are spending public money, public organisations are bound by national and European rules and regulations. In the case of the built environment representatives of authorities make decisions about future buildings that can substantially impact the wellbeing of building users and the general public. These decisions deal with design quality within a frame of time and money and could cause conflict with the regulations. Most of the conflicts in design decision making have to do with the psychological and managerial aspects of decision making. Although theoretically tangible and intangible costs and benefits could have equal weight in decision-making, in practice tangible factors are more often regarded as a valid basis for decision making than intangibles. Based on findings from two cases studies, a framework is proposed that aims to improve the decisions made by public clients by incorporating perception of architectural quality without violating European tendering procedures. Both case studies concern the selection of an architect and are based on observation, interviews and document analysis; in one case for a town hall and in the second case for a large sized elementary school. The resulting framework can be seen as a first step towards guidelines for better decision making in these tendering processes.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; decision making; design quality; public clients; tendering |
| Index terms: | architect, built environment, regulation, well-being, elementary school, decision-making, design decision, public client, design quality, tendering process, case study, interview, architectural quality, document analysis |
| Subjects: | quality assurance, political science, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, decision analysis, tendering, design practice, data science, professional practice, mental health and wellbeing, data collection methods, construction type, profession |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Governance, Construction Technology, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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