Kulczak, R; Piroozfar, P A E and Harder, M K (2015) Managing sustainability through decision processes: The influence of values and frames. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK.
Abstract
Delivering projects to minimum requirements in the UK construction industry can come at the expense of longer-term sustainability goals and unseen impacts. Without measurement, such trade-offs often remain unaccounted for. Therefore, managing sustainability becomes a significant challenge, with subsequent downgrading to a 'box-ticking' exercise – itself a process-orientated procedure with little attention to broader project impacts or end conditions. A more direct and holistic approach to understanding and later influencing sustainability in design decision making is to research the values and problem framing which occurs in early practitioner-client interactions. By reinterpreting underlying processes in human decision-making for architectural sustainability, key themes and sub-processes can be transparently examined, thus facilitating their engagement and enabling. Early findings suggest that reciprocal influences of human values and decision-problem framing play a fundamental role in shaping sustainability decision processes. Explicitly and implicitly, practitioners appear to gather and evaluate interpersonal and values-orientated information, on which they base assessments of a client, their position on sustainability, and its flexibility. Such intuitive analyses provide practitioners with beneficial psychosocial heuristics to approach and advance sustainability issues. These 'indicators' provided guidance on using situation-appropriate communication frames to achieve particular results. Thus, values engagements and influences, on and in conjunction with problem-frames, structure and guide sustainable design decision processes. Values and communication frames appear reciprocally influenced and self-reinforced, amounting to structural psychosocial drivers, or barriers, of sustainability.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision-making; human values; stakeholder engagement; sustainability management |
| Index terms: | interaction, construction industry, design decision, decision-making, holistic approach, stakeholder engagement, practitioner, problem framing, human values, decision process, sustainability management, sustainable design, exercise, heuristic |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, behavioral psychology, environmental engineering, decision analysis, design process, design practice, community and social dimensions, health behaviours and lifestyles, practitioner, risk assessment, quality of life and wellbeing, business |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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