Serag-Eldin, Gamil M (2010) A conflict management model for architectural design collaboration. PhD thesis, University of California, USA.
Abstract
Until recently the design of a building was carried out only by an architect. The architect maintained enough knowledge of buildings, in addition to knowledge of the social, religious and other aspects of his society, that allowed him to complete a building design. The entire building project was his sole creation.However, the design of buildings today is no longer a one-person operation, because the complexity of a large-scale design and construction exceeds the capacity of any single human's abilities. As we introduce new technologies, materials, and methodologies into building design, we draw on more and more knowledge from disciplines other than architecture and structural engineering. Designing buildings has become an exercise of multi-disciplinary teamwork.Multi-disciplinary collaboration is a complex task. It is especially difficult when design solutions need to be shared and evaluated by participants who represent different professional views of the project. A design solution generated by one participant may satisfy certain requirements and evaluation criteria, but might be contradictory to the goals or values of another participant. The differences signify the domain-expertise each discipline possesses, which is why they were assembled for the purposes of completing the project in the first place. Conflicts among these participants are inevitable, and must be resolved to reach a comprehensive design solution.This dissertation presents a comprehensive approach to negotiation and conflict management in architectural and building design. A primary objective of this research is to define conflict and provide analysis and understanding of its nature. Another objective is to develop a computational model of conflict management and negotiation strategies. To these ends, I developed SWAY a conceptual model that provides a set of conflict resolution algorithms that deal with situations and patterns of a conflict. The model allows designers from various disciplines to avoid conflict if possible and deal with inevitable conflicts in manners that improve the overall quality of the design. The dissertation also aims at enhancing the collaboration process among participants, which result in improving design quality and minimizing delays expenses.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Kalay, Yehuda E; Anderson, Mark and Zadeh, Lotfi |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; artificial intelligence; computer science; collaborative; conflict; design; negotiation; theory |
| Index terms: | dissertation, artificial intelligence, negotiation, architect, design and construction, conflict resolution, designer, building design, exercise, new technology, teamwork, design of building, architectural design, complexity, collaboration, methodology, strategy, science, conflict management, design quality, society, computational model |
| Subjects: | communities and social development, research methods, contractual arrangements, professional practice, innovation and technology management, architectural design, research dissemination and communication, specialized education, health behaviours and lifestyles, conflict resolution, systems engineering, building design, design practice, management, modelling and simulation, artificial intelligence, profession |
| Topics: | Education, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Procurement, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions |
| 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