Kazemian, R and Ronn, M (2009) Finnish architectural competitions: Structure, criteria and judgement process. Building Research & Information, 37(2), pp. 176-186. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The structure of the Finnish architectural competition system is examined to understand how a peer-review process works for the judgement and selection of the best architectural design. The evaluation of criteria in the competition process is clarified to determine how architectural issues are conceived and examined by the professional jury members. The thought processes of the architect-dominated jurors are elucidated; particularly design criteria connected with practitioners' tacit knowledge and experienced eyes. Open and direct interviews were conducted with seven architects who have direct involvement in the Finnish competition processes. They represent a wide array of practitioners' role at the board of jury, from the Finnish Architects Association (SAFA) which is officially responsible for arranging major architectural competitions to invited architect and design competitors.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural competitions; design evaluation; design quality; Finland; peer review |
| Index terms: | peer-review, design quality, design evaluation, tacit knowledge, architect, interview, architectural competition, architectural design, practitioner, Finland, competition |
| Subjects: | tendering, professional practice, market analysis, design practice, practitioner, data collection methods, Geography, profession, professional development, design assessment |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Procurement, Information Management, Design Practice, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| 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