Sharma, M (2014) Architectural design quality in local authority private finance initiative sheltered housing projects: the development of an evaluation tool. PhD thesis, Northumbria University, UK.
Abstract
Ever since the 1990s, when the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was developed as the primary method for delivering major public-sector capital projects in the UK, it has been severely criticised for the lack of design quality in the buildings that it produced. The main driver for this thesis was to redress that situation. The development of an Architectural Design Quality Evaluation Tool was based on a live project with a metropolitan council in the North East of England. The aim was to improve the design quality of schemes that had been submitted through a PFI to replace the council’s entire sheltered housing stock. The Tool has two functions. It was a substantial part of the assessment process, which selected the preferred bidding consortium from the original six bidders, through a series of stages. However, it was also directed at improving the quality of all submitted designs through an iterative process. While existing tools provide useful benchmarks, and some offer means of structuring an evaluation, none are totally applicable in the context of PFI competitive bidding processes. Moreover, the existing tools are good for evaluating performance attributes of buildings, and these are important, but do not substantially tackle the less tangible amenity attributes that are vital to engendering the feeling of home. This Tool emphasises the amenity attributes without neglecting performance, thus generating a design quality hierarchy. The criteria for assessment are derived from academic publications. In order to reflect the hierarchy, each criterion was weighted on a scale of one to five, in accordance with multivariable utility theory. The percentage allocation to each main heading of the Tool was determined by the local authority Project Team. A User Guide was developed to assist the evaluation of schemes. The Tool itself was appraised at the final stage, assisting the selection of the preferred bidder. The designs were evaluated in three reviews, thus providing 156 results. The Tool and its development have been published, and the Tool and the User Guide accepted by the Homes and Communities Agency as an example of good practice. Both currently appear on its website. The Tool continues to assist other social housing providers with the design quality of their own projects.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural design; bidding; private finance; project team; UK; utility theory |
| Index terms: | capital project, bidder, project team, evaluation tool, social housing, consortium, England, good practice, private finance, private finance initiative, bidding, publication, architectural design, agency, competitive bidding, design quality, housing project, local authority, utility theory, housing stock |
| Subjects: | design practice, performance measurement, economic theory, industry analysis, sociology, partnership management, project delivery, Geography, housing and residential development, evaluation and assessment methods, research dissemination and communication, strategic project management, bidding, professional practice, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Project Management, Procurement, Quality Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Urban Studies, Design 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