Magent, C S; Korkmaz, S; Klotz, L E and Riley, D R (2009) A design process evaluation method for sustainable buildings. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 5(1-2), pp. 62-74. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
This research develops a technique to model and evaluate the design process for sustainable buildings. Three case studies were conducted to validate this method. The resulting design process evaluation method for sustainable buildings (DPEMSB) may assist project teams in designing their own sustainable building design processes. This method helps to identify critical decisions in the design process, to evaluate these decisions for time and sequence, to define information required for decisions from various project stakeholders, and to identify stakeholder competencies for process implementation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision-based design; design process; integrated design; process modelling; sustainable design |
| Index terms: | sustainable design, process modelling, design process, stakeholder competency, case study, project stakeholder, sustainable building, sustainable building design, project team, implementation |
| Subjects: | sociology, sustainable construction, design process, management, project delivery, contractual arrangements, energy systems, design analysis, design methods, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Research Practice, Project Management |
| 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