Volker, L (2010) Dutch architectural design tenders explained from a sensemaking perspective. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
In the context of architect selection for building projects, procurement law assumes the process of decision making as rational. Therefore public commissioning clients have to announce the decision criteria and procedures up front in order to comply with the procurement principles of transparency, equal treatment, objectivity and proportionality. However, observations, interviews, and document analysis in four case studies of Dutch architect selections by public commissioning clients showed that rational processes provide merely the structure for a process more aptly characterized as sensemaking. In this respect the rationality of the legal requirements clash with the psychological rationality of decision making. This makes it for decision makers almost impossible to design a selection procedure and announce the criteria and weighing factors up front. In this paper fifteen recommendations for architect selection processes are proposed that will prevent further conflict of rationalities and support clients in organizing tenders for the selection of architects. These recommendations relate to the structure of future design tenders and are based on five sensemaking aspects of the procurement process that underlie this interplay of rationalities: reading the decision task, searching for a match, writing the decision process, aggregating value judgements and justifying the decision.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; client; decision making; procurement; sensemaking |
| Index terms: | architectural design, transparency, architect, decision criteria, commissioning, decision-making, decision process, proportionality, document analysis, rationality, case study, procurement process, sensemaking, interview |
| Subjects: | professional development, design practice, decision-making and reasoning, completion, cognitive psychology, decision analysis, data collection methods, profession, data science, legal systems, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Procurement, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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