Cheung, F K T; Kuen, J L F and Skitmore, M (2002) Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of architectural consultants. Construction Management and Economics, 20(7), pp. 569-580. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The selection of a competent architect is vital to the success of a development. Like in many developed countries, developers in Hong Kong select architects based on a set of criteria. Price is not the only consideration in the process, and decisions rely heavily on subjective judgement. By conducting a questionnaire survey, the research reported here identified the common criteria for selection and their relative importance for an objective selection. This involved the use of an evaluation method called the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Survey data from projects with similar characteristics were used to compute the criteria weights. Multi-criteria models for seven out of 27 categories of project were built with reference to the computed weights derived from the survey. In addition, a computer program, called the Architectural Consultant Selection System (ACSS), was designed to illustrate a logical approach for the evaluation of prospective consultant architects based on the models constructed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytical hierarchy process; consultant architect; selection criteria |
| Index terms: | criteria evaluation, developed country, questionnaire, survey, relative importance, selection criteria, analytical hierarchy process, architect, computer program, Hong Kong |
| Subjects: | profession, risk assessment, data collection methods, Geography, development economics, tendering, software systems, decision-making and optimization, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, International Construction, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Procurement |
| 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