Teams engaged in building design are composed of multiple stakeholders, including architects, owners, engineers, and sometimes users. Members of the design team often have different and conflicting interests, especially when considering sustainability issues. For example, issues may include reducing embodied energy while creating an earthquake resistant building at the same time. Practitioners require a decision-making method that allows for creating transparency, building consensus, and continuous learning. Weighting Rating and Calculating (WRC) is a widely used decision-making method. However, it has several shortcomings. Choosing By Advantages (CBA) is a decision-making method that supports the design process by fostering greater transparency. This paper presents a case study comparing the use of WRC vs. CBA in the selection of a structural system for a campus residential building in Palo Alto, California. The case study found that the same decision resulted from both methods, but the assumptions of the two methods were different, and CBA helped more in creating transparency and building consensus on the decision rationale.
Decision-making, Choosing By Advantages, CBA, Sustainability, Design Management.
Arroyo, P. , Tommelein, I. D. & Ballard, G. 2014, 'Comparing Weighting Rating and Calculating vs. Choosing by Advantages to Make Design Choices ' In:, Kalsaas, B. T., Koskela, L. & Saurin, T. A., 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Oslo, Norway, 25-27 Jun 2014. pp 401-412