Measuring and Improving Rationale Clarity in a University Office Building Design Process

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.

[1]  John Marvin Chachere,et al.  Causes and Effects of Rationale Clarity in AEC Design Projects , 2009 .

[2]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The new science of management decision , 1960 .

[3]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[4]  Raymond E. Levitt,et al.  Cifecenter for Integrated Facility Engineering Can You Accelerate Your Project Using Extreme Collaboration? a Model Based Analysis Can You Accelerate Your Project Using Extreme Collaboration? a Model Based Analysis , 2022 .

[5]  CIFE Working Paper,et al.  Causes and Effects of Rationale Clarity in the AEC Design Industry , 2009 .

[6]  B. Loasby The External Control of Organizations. A Resource Dependence Perspective , 1979 .

[7]  E. Romanelli,et al.  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , 1992 .

[8]  John Haymaker,et al.  Benchmarking Current Conceptual High-Rise Design Processes , 2010 .

[9]  John Haymaker,et al.  Coordinating Goals, Preferences, Options, and Analyses for the Stanford Living Laboratory Feasibility Study , 2006, EG-ICE.

[10]  Srinath Perera,et al.  Case-based design: A review and analysis of building design applications , 1997, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[11]  Timo Hartmann,et al.  Implementing information systems with project teams using ethnographic-action research , 2009, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[12]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[13]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  Ambiguity and choice in organizations , 1976 .

[14]  John Haymaker,et al.  Framework for Measuring the Rationale Clarity of AEC Design Decisions , 2011 .

[15]  Marc Roubens,et al.  Advances in decision analysis , 1999 .

[16]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives—Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1977 .

[17]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  The External Control of Organizations. , 1978 .

[18]  A. Stinchcombe Stratification and Organization: Bureaucratic and craft administration of production: a comparative study , 1959 .

[19]  R. Keeney,et al.  Advances in Decision Analysis: Practical Value Models , 2007 .

[20]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. , 1979 .

[21]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[22]  M. Lepper,et al.  The Construction of Preference: When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? , 2006 .

[23]  John Haymaker,et al.  COMMUNICATING, INTEGRATING AND IMPROVING MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN NARRATIVES , 2006 .

[24]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use , 1997 .