Williamson, T J (2010) Predicting building performance: The ethics of computer simulation. Building Research & Information, 38(4), pp. 401-410. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
A responsible architect or engineer taking sustainable design seriously will aim to create a built environment that exhibits cohesion in the contexts of environmental, social/cultural, and technological realms. In addition, the very notion of sustainability extends an actual (or implied) duty of care to peoples and environments now and into the future. Advanced computer simulation of environmental and technological performance offers one way of tackling this obligation. However, claims about simulation can lead to a spurious impression of accuracy and therefore legitimacy. Likewise, inappropriate applications of simulation may result in wrong decisions and an erroneous allocation of resources. Almost all discussions of the validity of computer simulation for decision-making focus on its quantitative accuracy; however, the problems addressed are often far from well defined. Two concepts from the social sciences, 'trustworthiness' and a taxonomy of 'ignorance', are introduced as ways of assessing the appropriate use of simulation. Simulation applications should not be seen as surrogates of reality and interpreted as logical answers to substantive problems. Although simulations have potency as perspectives to support wise human judgements, a more mature approach is needed when applying these tools and outputs to decision-making.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; decision-making; ethics; modelling; simulation; sustainable design |
| Index terms: | architect, built environment, social science, decision-making, simulation application, duty, legitimacy, modelling, taxonomy, sustainable design, accuracy, validity, engineer, cohesion, building performance, computer simulation, ethics |
| Subjects: | sociology, decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, quality assurance, structural engineering, theoretical framing, design process, professional development, modelling and simulation, data analysis and analytics, ethical practice, analytical methods, profession, contractual role, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research 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