Towards an explicit design decision process: The case of the structural frame

Soetanto, R; Dainty, A R J; Glass, J and Price, A D F (2006) Towards an explicit design decision process: The case of the structural frame. Construction Management and Economics, 24(6), pp. 603-614. ISSN 1466433X

Abstract

Decisions made during the briefing and conceptual design stages of a building project are critical to its success. One of the earliest major decisions which can have a significant effect on downstream events and results is the selection of the structural frame. Given its importance to the efficacy of the finished building, the structural frame selection process should arguably be objective and transparent, the final decision being based on the frame's ability to perform against a range of criteria appropriate to the scheme in question. However, the heuristics underpinning such decisions tend not to be explicit and thus, are difficult for inexperienced clients to understand. This article reports on research which examined the criteria used by clients, structural engineers, architects and main contractors when selecting structural frames. These were established via a postal questionnaire survey of a stratified sample of design professionals, contractors and client organizations. The analysis reveals marked differences in the perceived importance of the criteria identified amongst the respondents, which may result in conflicts between design and construction advisers and their clients should they be made explicit in the design process. Nevertheless, it is important that such differences are revealed within the decision-making process if more appropriate design decisions are to be made in the future.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: conflict; criteria; design; project team; structural frame
Index terms: heuristic, main contractor, decision-making process, design and construction, architect, project team, structural frame, design process, client organization, survey, questionnaire, structural engineer, briefing, design decision, conceptual design
Subjects: practitioner, scope management, design methods, data collection methods, profession, risk assessment, client relations, contractual arrangements, project delivery, architectural elements, design practice, decision analysis
Topics: Research Practice, Project Management, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Design Practice
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