Measuring and Improving Rationale Clarity in a University Office Building Design Process
This article is a reply.
VIEW THE ORIGINAL ARTICLEPublication: Journal of Architectural Engineering
Volume 17, Issue 3
Abstract
This paper measures and improves the clarity of design rationale on an architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) project and observes the effects. The rationale clarity framework (RCF) defines decisions in terms of components of rationale—managers, stakeholders, designers, gatekeepers, objectives (constraints and goals), alternatives, and analyses (impacts and assessment of stakeholder value). RCF defines relations and conditions of clarity for each component—coherent, concrete, connected, consistent, credible, certain, and correct. Using RCF, the rationale clarity of decisions was observed and documented on an industry case project. A decision-assistance methodology that seeks to clarify rationale, called MACDADI, was then implemented and costs and benefits from each team member’s perspective were observed. Future work is identified that can lower costs and increase benefits of clarifying rationale.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This research was made possible by the university project managers, stakeholders, and designers with the desire and vision to improve decision making. The authors thank them for providing design information, the opportunity to attend their meetings, and financial support for one author’s Ph.D. research. The authors also thank undergraduate researchers Engin Ayaz and Kate Hayes.
References
Chachere, J., and Haymaker, J. (2011). “Framework for measuring rationale clarity of AEC design decisions.” J. Archit. Eng., 17(3), 86–96.
Chachere, J., Kunz, J., and Levitt, R. (2004). “Can you accelerate your project using extreme collaboration? A model based analysis.” Technical Rep. T152, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford Univ., Palo Alto, CA.
Clevenger, C., and Haymaker, J. (2010). “The need to measure the guidance afforded by design strategies.” CIFE Technical Rep. 190, Stanford Univ., Palo Alto, CA.
Eastman, C. M., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., and Liston, K. (2008). BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, architects, engineers, contractors, and fabricators, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
DiMaggio, P., and Powell, W. (1991). “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.” The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, W. Powell and P. DiMaggio, eds., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Edwards, W., Miles, R., and von Winterfeldt, D., eds. (2007). Advances in decision analysis, Cambridge, New York.
Gane, V., and Haymaker, J. (2010). “Benchmarking conceptual high-rise design processes.” J. Archit. Eng., 16(3), 100–111.
Hartmann, T., Fischer, M., and Haymaker, J. (2009). “Implementing information systems with project teams using ethnographic—Action research.” Adv. Eng. Inform., 23(1), 57–67.
Haymaker, J. (2006). “Communicating, integrating, and improving multidisciplinary design narratives.” Int. Conf. on Design Computing and Cognition, Springer, Netherlands, 635–653.
Haymaker, J., and Chachere, J. (2006). “Coordinating goals, preferences, options, and analyses for the Stanford living laboratory feasibility study.” Lecture notes in computer science, No. 4200, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 320–327.
Iyengar, S. S., and Lepper, M. R. (2000). “When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?” J. Pers. Social Psych., 79(6), 995–1006.
Keeney, R., and von Winterfeldt, D. (2007). “Practical value models.” Advances in decision analysis, W. Edwards, R. Miles, and D. von Winterfeldt, eds., Cambridge, New York.
Keeney, R., and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs, Wiley, New York.
Lichtig, W. A. (2005). “Sutter health: Developing a contracting model to support lean project delivery.” Lean Constr. J., 2(1), 105–112.
March, J., and Olsen, J., eds. (1985). Ambiguity and choice in organizations, Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, Norway.
McGregor, A. I., and Roberts, C. (2003). “Using the SPeAR assessment tool in sustainable master planning.” Proc., U.S. Green Building Conf., Pittsburgh.
Moran, T., and Carroll, J., eds. (1996). Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Perrow, C. (1967). “The neo-Weberian model.” Complex organizations, McGraw-Hill, New York, 119–131.
Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Simon, H. (1977). The new science of management decision, 3rd Ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Stanford Univ. (2001). “Project delivery process (PDP).” 〈http://cpm.stanford.edu/pdp.pdf〉 (Mar. 10, 2008).
Stanford Univ. (2002). “The guidelines for sustainable buildings.” 〈http://cpm.stanford.edu/process_new/Sustainable_Guidelines.pdf〉 (Mar. 10, 2008).
Stanford Univ. (2003). “Seismic engineering guidelines.” 〈http://cpm.stanford.edu/process_new/Seismic.pdf〉 (Mar. 10, 2008).
Stanford Univ. (2005). “Guidelines for life cost analysis.” 〈http://cpm.stanford.edu/process_new/LCCA121405.pdf〉 (Mar. 10, 2008).
Stinchcombe, A. (1959). “Bureaucratic and craft administration of production: A comparative study.” Administrative Sci. Q., 4, 168–187.
U.S. Green Building Council. (2008). “LEED for new construction and major renovations, Version 2.2.” 〈http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1095〉 (Oct. 1, 2008).
Vresilovic, K., and Grauman, F. (2007). “Bohlin, Cywinski, Jackson and the Stanford University Graduate School of Business Knight Management Center.” CEE 215: Goals and methods of sustainable building design, Stanford Univ., Palo Alto, CA.
Watson, I., and Perera, S. (1997). “Case-based design: A review and analysis of building design applications.” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf., 11(1), 59–87.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Architectural Engineering
Volume 17 • Issue 3 • September 2011
Pages: 97 - 111
Copyright
© 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 11, 2010
Accepted: Mar 15, 2011
Published online: Aug 6, 2011
Published in print: Sep 1, 2011
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.