Al-Saggaf, A; Hegazy, T; Nasir, H and Taha, M (2022) Computerized DSS for evaluating design performance of residential buildings using additive weighting approach. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 18(5), pp. 631-651. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
Early architectural decisions have an enormous impact on the long-term performance of buildings. Evaluating architectural designs remains a subjective and biased process that varies from one person to another. Based on three questionnaires with 37 expert architects, seven Architectural Design Variables (ADVs) were identified, with a total of 40 design options that suit residential buildings. The experts defined the degree by which each ADV decision positively or negatively affect multiple life-cycle performance criteria: space functionality; construction time and cost; operational performance; and aesthetics. Based on that, this paper presents a novel Architectural Design Decision Support System (AD-DSS) to automatically evaluate and rank any combination of early design, using the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method. The AD-DSS can automatically evaluate any combination of architectural design in terms of overall performance or a specific aspect without subjective inputs. Besides, a simple-user program developed to facilitate multiple system functions. A case study of a residential building with five different design alternatives demonstrated the powerful ability of the AD-DSS to provide early decision advice in a systematic and informed way to project stakeholders.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural variables; building design; computer program; decision support system; design quality; life-cycle performance; multi-criteria decision analysis; residential buildings |
| Index terms: | program, questionnaire, computer program, project stakeholder, architect, multi-criteria decision analysis, construction time, architectural design, option, residential building, performance criteria, building design, decision support, design quality, case study, functionality, aesthetic |
| Subjects: | software systems, design practice, performance measurement, factor and component analysis, sociology, decision analysis, project controls, data collection methods, profession, construction type, design features, architectural design, professional practice |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Time Control, Quality Management, Digital Applications, 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