Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of stakeholder satisfaction as additive to improve building design quality: AHP-based approach

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is possible to obtain better, qualified and error-free structures by evaluating the multidimensional criteria reflects all manner of opinions in the building production process. Stakeholders’ integration plays a major role in achieving this evaluation expecting the targeted quality in building production, and different priorities could be defined by various type of stakeholders. Therefore, applicable approaches should be used where the stakeholders of the building production process will be included to determine priority levels of criteria. All the criteria considered should provide that all dimensions of demands and expectations are met in the creation of the new building and the built environment. In this study, which is a widely used multi-criteria decision-making method, is applied to ensure mutual satisfaction of decision-makers and beneficiaries in construction process. Four main criteria and sub-criteria related to these main criteria were determined by adding “green and sustainability issues” to the “functionality”, “build quality” and “impact” trilogy determined by Vitruvius for the development of architectural quality. The method used here is based on an evaluation system takes into account all of the stakeholders’ expressions. Necessary data is gathered from three type of stakeholders; a technical team of five individuals consists of architects and engineers, a focus group of twelve individuals consist of occupiers as mass housing clients and the last one is the focus group of three individuals from building production firms as facilities manager. It was observed that distinct type of stakeholder ranked the weight of each main and sub-criterion differently. Therefore, it has been concluded that definition of criteria and determination of the weights of them shall not be determined by only one stakeholder in a project, but also all particular stakeholder are also shall be included during planning and application process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

MCDM:

Multiple criteria decision making

AHP:

Analytic hierarchy process

PROMETHEE:

Preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations

TOPSIS:

Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution

ELECTRE:

Elemination and choice translating reality english

DQI:

Design quality indicator

HQI:

Housing quality indicator

HQS:

Housing quality standart

POE:

Post-occupancy evaluation

ODPM:

Office of the deputy prime minister

GDM:

Group decision-making

CI:

Consistency index

CR:

Consistency ratio

RI:

Random consistency index

References

  • Abdel-Basset, M., et al. (2018). Three-way decisions based on neutrosophic sets and AHP-QFD framework for supplier selection problem. Future Generation Computer Systems, 89, 19–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdirad, H., & Nazari, A. (2015). Barriers to effective implementation of quality management systems in public design projects in Iran. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11(6), 457–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adinyira, E., Kwofie, T., & Quarcoo, F. (2018). Stakeholder requirements for building energy efficiency in mass housing delivery: The House of Quality approach. Environment, development and sustainability, 20(3), 1115–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alanne, K., et al. (2007). Multi-criteria evaluation of residential energy supply systems. Energy and buildings, 39(12), 1218–1226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASCE. (2012). Quality in the constructed project: A guide for owners, designers, and constructors. VA: ASCE Reston.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Awasthi, A., & Chauhan, S. S. (2012). A hybrid approach integrating affinity diagram, AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for sustainable city logistics planning. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 36(2), 573–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, G. (1996). Building evaluation techniques. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernus, P., Nemes, L., & Schmidt, G. (2012). Handbook on enterprise architecture. Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beynon, M. J. (2006). The role of the DS/AHP in identifying inter-group alliances and majority rule within group decision making. Group decision and negotiation, 15(1), 21–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, R., & Singh, M. (2015). Preserving privacy in healthcare web services paradigm through hippocratic databases. Intelligent Computing, Communication and Devices. (pp. 177–188). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blyth, A., & Worthington, J. (2002). Managing the brief for better design. Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boschi, N. (2002). Quality of life: Meditations on people and architecture. Monterey (CA). In: Levin, H. (Ed.), Proceedings of Indoor Air ’02. ISBN 0-9721832-0-5.

  • Brophy, V., & Lewis, J. O. (2012). A green vitruviu principles and practice of sustainable architectural design. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. (2008). The design quality manual improving building performance. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornick, T. (2006). Construction quality and management—its delivery and discipline in housing and other building sectors. (p. 471). Management, Quality Economics in Building.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deming, W. E. (1952). Elementary principles of the statistical control of quality. UK: Oxford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, H. (1999). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 21(3), 215–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinc, P., Özbilen, E., & Bilir, M. B. (2014). A multi-dimensional scale for measuring residential satisfaction (rs) in mass housing projects. Indoor and Built Environment, 23(6), 864–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gann, D., Salter, A., & Whyte, J. (2003). Design quality indicator as a tool for thinking. Building research & information, 31(5), 318–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gass, S. I., & Rapcsák, T. (2004). Singular value decomposition in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 154(3), 573–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E., & Gebken, R. (2003). Design quality in pre-project planning: Applications of the project definition rating index. Building Research & Information, 31(5), 346–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harputlugil, T., Gültekin, A.T., Prins, M., & Topcu, Y.I. (2016). Architectural design quality assessment based on analytic hierarchy process: A case study. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 31(2).

  • Ho, W., & Ma, X. (2018). The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 267(2), 399–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, T.-Y., Lu, S.-T., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2004). Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International journal of project management, 22(7), 573–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juran, J. M. (1974). Quality Control Handbook. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamaruzzaman, S. N., et al. (2018). Developing weighting system for refurbishment building assessment scheme in Malaysia through analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Energy Policy, 112, 280–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazaz, A., & Birgonul, M. T. (2005). Determination of quality level in mass housing projects in Turkey. Journal of construction engineering and management, 131(2), 195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondo, Y. (2000). Attractive quality: its importance and the points of remark. Total Quality Management, 11(4–6), 647–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowaltowski, D. C., et al. (2019). A critical analysis of research of a mass-housing programme. Building Research & Information, 47(6), 716–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuruüzüm, A., & Atsan, N. (2001). Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi ve İşletmecilik Alanındaki Uygulamaları. Akdeniz University Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences Faculty Journal, 1(1), 83–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, J. T. (1974). Designing for human behavior: Architecture and the behavioral sciences. (Vol. 6)Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le, L. H., Ta, A. D., & Dang, H. Q. (2016). Building up a system of indicators to measure social housing quality in Vietnam. Procedia engineering, 142, 116–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, T. H., Ng, S. T., & Skitmore, M. (2012). Conflict or consensus: An investigation of stakeholder concerns during the participation process of major infrastructure and construction projects in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 36(2), 333–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, T. H., Thomas Ng, S., & Skitmore, M. (2016). Modeling multi-stakeholder multi-objective decisions during public participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: A decision rule approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(3), 04015087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malakouti, M., et al. (2019). Evaluation of flexibility components for improving housing quality using fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Building Engineering, 22, 154–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mareschal, B. (1988). Weight stability intervals in multicriteria decision aid. European Journal of Operational Research, 33(1), 54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mast, B. D. (2009). Measuring housing quality in the housing choice voucher program with customer satisfaction survey data. A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 11(2), 101–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mlecnik, E., Visscher, H., & Van Hal, A. (2010). Barriers and opportunities for labels for highly energy-efficient houses. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4592–4603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulliner, E., Smallbone, K., & Maliene, V. (2013). An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method. Omega, 41(2), 270–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekuri, A., Haapasalo, H., & Herrala, M. (2011). Productivity and performance management–managerial practices in the construction industry. International Journal of Performance Measurement, 1(1), 39–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Preiser, W. F., & Nasar, J. L. (2008). Assessing building performance: Its evolution from post-occupancy evaluation. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 2(1), 84–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Preiser, W., & Vischer, J. (Eds.). (2006).Assessing building performance. Oxford: Elsevier.

  • Razavi, M., Aliee, F. S., & Badie, K. (2011). An AHP-based approach toward enterprise architecture analysis based on enterprise architecture quality attributes. Knowledge and information systems, 28(2), 449–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rounce, G. (1998). Quality, waste and cost considerations in architectural building design management. International Journal of Project Management, 16(2), 123–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, I. D., & Howe, T. N. (2001). Vitruvius: ‘Ten books on architecture.’ Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical modelling, 9(3–5), 161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 48(1), 9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabaei, D., Erkoyuncu, J., & Roy, R. (2015). A review of multi-criteria decision making methods for enhanced maintenance delivery. Procedia CIRP, 37, 30–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safapour, E., et al. (2019). Identifying effective project-based communication indicators within primary and secondary stakeholders in construction projects. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 11(4), 04519028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanni-Anibire, M. O., Hassanain, M. A., & Al-Hammad, A.-M. (2016). Post-occupancy evaluation of housing facilities: Overview and summary of methods. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 30(5), 04016009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarathy, P. S. (2013). TQM practice in real-estate industry using AHP. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 2049–2063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikorsky, C. S. (1990). Product and process integration for the US design-construction industry. Texas A & M University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H., A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. In Proceedings of the American philosophical society, vol 106(6), pp 467–482

  • Svahnberg, M., et al. (2003). A quality-driven decision-support method for identifying software architecture candidates. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 13(05), 547–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thanki, S., Govindan, K., & Thakkar, J. (2016). An investigation on lean-green implementation practices in Indian SMEs using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 284–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, D. S., et al. (2003). Managing value and quality in design. Building Research & Information, 31(5), 334–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods. Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study. (pp. 5–21). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Uzun, S., & Kazan, H. (2016). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden AHP TOPSIS ve PROMETHEE karşılaştırılması: Gemi inşada ana makine seçimi uygulaması. Journal of Transportation and Logistics, 1(1), 99–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vafaei, N., Ribeiro, R. A., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2016). Normalization techniques for multi-criteria decision making analytical hierarchy process case study. Doctoral conference on computing electrical and industrial systems (pp. 261–269). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volker, L., et al. (2008). Deciding about design quality: Design perception during a European tendering procedure. Design Studies, 29(4), 387–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yau, Y. (2011). Multicriteria decision making for homeowners’ participation in building maintenance. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 138(2), 110–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yudelson, J. (2010). Greening existing buildings (McGraw-Hill’s Greensource). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas, E. K., et al. (2018). Sustainable decision-making in civil engineering, construction and building technology. Sustainability, 10(1), 14

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, KTO Karatay University, Akabe Mah. Alaaddin Kap Cad. No: 130 42020, Karatay, Konya, Turkey

    Şule Eryürük

  2. Department of Architecture, Bingol University, Selahaddin-i Eyyubi Mah. Üniversite Cad. No: 1, 12000, Bingol, Turkey

    Fatma Kürüm Varolgüneş

  3. Department of Civil Engineering, Bingol University, Selahaddin-i Eyyubi Mah. Üniversite Cad. No: 1, 12000, Bingol, Turkey

    Sadık Varolgüneş

Authors
  1. Şule Eryürük
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fatma Kürüm Varolgüneş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sadık Varolgüneş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatma Kürüm Varolgüneş.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eryürük, Ş., Kürüm Varolgüneş, F. & Varolgüneş, S. Assessment of stakeholder satisfaction as additive to improve building design quality: AHP-based approach. J Hous and the Built Environ 37, 505–528 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09855-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09855-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation