Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) As An Assessment Approach For Architectural Design: Case Study of Architectural Design Studio

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2018.53

Keywords:

Architectural education, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Assessment of architectural design,

Abstract

Architectural design is an effective decision-making activity based on problem solving. Within this context, assessment of architectural design is complex. This complexity is not based on content and volume of problems, but also heterogeneity and uncertainty of information provided for assessment, subjective approaches, and a large number of the criterion for assessment. To solve the problems stated, within the content of this article, assessment methodology based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) – a Multi Criteria Decision Making(MCDM) methodology- supporting an effective comparative analysis among the alternative projects based on determined criterion is applied. The methodology is implemented with a case study of one of the design studios of Çankaya University with observation, research and assessment of the whole education term.

The outcomes of the AHP-based approach suggested by the research are consistent with those obtained by traditional assessment methods, since it has been seen that this approach can provide numerical results that are comparable, measurable, gradable, consistent and can be reported separately for each assessor. However, it has also been found that the AHP-based method is suitable for evaluating only a limited number of projects. There is a possibility that the evaluation period can be longer, and the process may be somewhat tedious if the number of projects increases. With the research, and by setting thresholds levels for evaluation, it has become clear that successful and unsuccessful projects can be separated for achievement/competence. Consequently, it has been observed that the approach has considerable potentials to be further developed to evaluate architectural projects comparatively, especially for architectural students projects, and other architectural projects such as architectural design competitions.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Timuçin Harputlugil, Asst. Prof. Dr. Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Çankaya University , Ankara, Turkey.

Timuçin Harputlugil, born in 1975, had his bachelor, master and PhD titles from department of architecture of Gazi University between years 1994-2012. He is recently working as an Assistant Professor at the Department of Architecture of Faculty of Architecture of Çankaya University. Beside his academic career, he was involved in design and construction process of several buildings. He was a guest researcher in Technical University of Eindhoven(TU/e) in 2005 and Delft University of Technology in 2010-2011 for six months which was granted by Tubitak. He has several articles, international and national conference papers and a mention prize of a national architectural competition. He is scholarly interested in Building Technologies, Architectural Design Quality, Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods in Design and Energy Efficient Design. He is married and father of two.

References

Adamović, P., Maja, C.D., Nahod, M. (2008). Expert Choice Model For Choosing Appropriate Trenchless Method For Pipe Laying. Journal of Expert Choice, p. 1-12.

Akadiri P.O., Olomolaiye P.O., Chinyio E.A. (2013). Multi-Criteria Evaluation Model For The Selection Of Sustainable Materials For Building Projects. Automation in Construction, 30, p. 113-125.

Aksakal E., Dagdeviren M., (2015). Talent Management Based Personnel Assignment Model And Solution Proposal. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 30(2), p. 249-262.

Alagbe, O. A., Oluwatayo, A. A., Aderonmu, P. A., & Alalade, G. M. (2015). Difference in Grading Parameters in Architectural Schools And its Impact On the Competency Rating of Future Professionals. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 4(3), p. 230-236.

Alessio, I., Ashraf, L. (2009). Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and Limitations. OR Insight, 22(4), p. 201–220.

Al-Harbi K.M.A.S. (2001). Application Of The AHP in Project Management. International Journal Of Project Management, 19(1), p. 19-27.

Ali H.H., Al Nsairat S.F. (2009). Developing a Green Building Assessment Tool For Developing Countries–Case of Jordan. Building and Environment, 44(5), p. 1053-1064.

Aminbakhsh S., Gündüz M., Sönmez R., (2013). Safety Risk Assessment Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) During Planning and Budgeting Construction Projects. Journal of Safety Research, 46, p. 99-105.

Arroyo, P., Tommelein, I. D., & Ballard, G. (2014). Comparing AHP and CBA as decision methods to resolve the choosing problem in detailed design. Journal of construction engineering and management, 141(1), 04014063.

Bitarafan, M., Hosseini, S. B., Abazarlou, S., Mahmoudzadeh, A. (2015). Selecting the optimal composition of architectural forms from the perspective of civil defense using AHP and IHWP methods, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11:2, 137-148,

Çıkış, Ş., Çil, E. (2009). Problematization Of Assessment İn The Architectural Design Education: First Year As A Case Study. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 1, Issue 1, p. 2103-2110.

Crooks, T. J., Kane, M. T., Cohen, A. S. (1996). Threats to the Valid Use of Assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles. Policy & Practice, 3(3), p.265-286.

Davis, D. (1997). Design As A Process The Project Development Process. Annual Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Dickson, M. (2004). Achieving Quality In Building Design By Intention, Designing Better Buildings. Spon Press, London, UK.

Gandhi S., Mangla S.K., Kumar P., Kumar D. (2016). A Combined Approach Using Ahp And Dematel For Evaluating Success Factors in Implementation Of Green Supply Chain Management in Indian Manufacturing Industries. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 19(6), p. 537-561.

Harputlugil T., Gültekin A.T., Prins M., Topcu Y.I., (2014). Architectural Design Quality Assessment Based On Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Case Study. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 31(2), p.139-161.

Harputlugil T., Prins M., Gultekin A.T., Topçu İ. (2011). Conceptual Framework For Potential Implementations Of Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods For Design Quality Assessment. CIB International Conference of Management and Innovation for Sustainable Build Environment, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Hassanpour, B., Ani, A. I. C., (2015). Transparent Assessment Model In Architecture Design Studio: Eastern Mediterranean University As Case Study. Open House International , 40:2, p.37-43.

Heravi G., Fathi M., Faeghi S. (2017). Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Method For Optimal Selection Of Sustainable İndustrial Building Options Focused On Petrochemical Projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, p. 2999-3013.

Hickman, R. (2007). Whippet-Fancying and Other Vices: Re-Evaluating Assessment in Art and Design. The Problem of Assessment in Art and Design. Chicago: Intellect, p.77-88.

Jato-Espino D., Castillo-Lopez E., Rodriguez-Hernandez J., Canteras-Jordana J.C. (2014). A Review Of Application Of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods in Construction. Automation in Construction, 45, p. 151-162.

Kalaycı, P. D. (2016). Etkileşimden Bütünleşmeye- Bir mimari Tasarım Stüdyosu Pratiğinin Anatomisi, Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara, Türkiye.

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

Lai Y.T., Wang W.C., Wang H.H. (2008). AHP-And Simulation-Based Budget Determination Procedure For Public Building Construction Projects”, Automation in Construction, 17(5), p. 623-632.

Lee G.K., Chan E.H. (2008). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach For Assesment of Urban Renewal Proposals. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), p. 155-168.

Markelj, J., Kitek Kuzman, M., Grošelj, P., Zbašnik-Senegačnik, M. (2014). A Simplified Method For Evaluating Building Sustainability in The Early Design Phase for Architects. Sustainability, 6(12), p. 8775-8795.

Mela, K., Tiainen, T., Heinisuo, M. (2012). Comparative Study Of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods For Building Design. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26(4), p. 716-726.

Mulliner E., Malys N., Maliene V. (2016). Comparative Analysis Of MCDM Methods For The Assessment Of Sustainable Housing Affordability. Omega, 59, p.146-156.

Nahid M., Gholam R.A. (2010). Railway Station Site Selection Using Analytical Hierarchy Process And Data Envelopment Analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 59(1), p. 107-114.

Nazidizaji, S., Tomé, A., Regateiro, F. (2014). Search For Design Intelligence: A Field Study On The Role Of Emotional İntelligence In Architectural Design Studios. In Frontiers of Architectural Research, Volume 3, Issue 4, p.413-423.

Omkarprasad S.V.., Sushil K. (2006). Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169 (1), p. 1–29.

Özcan, T., Çelebi, N., Esnaf, Ş., (2011). Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methodologies and Implementation of a Warehouse Location Selection Problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), p. 9773-9779.

Palabiyik, S., Colakoglu, B. (2012). Mimari Tasarim Surecinde Son Urunun Degerlendirilmesi: Bir Bulanik Karar Verme Modeli. Megaron Architecture, 7(3), p.191-207.

Pandav C., Sachin K.C., Kiran M.J, Basanta M.S., Prabin K. (2016). Application of an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in the GIS Interface For Suitable Fire Site Selection: A Case Study from Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 53, p. 60-71.

Ribeiro R. A., Moreira A. M., Van den Broek P., Pimentel A. (2011). Hybrid Assessment Method For Software Engineering Decisions. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), p. 208-219.

Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill International, New York, U.S.A.

Saaty, T. L. (1986). Axiomatic Foundation Of The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 32(7), p. 841-855.

Saaty, T.L. (1990). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, U.S.A.

Saaty, T. L. (1994). Highlights and Critical Points in The Theory And Application Of The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 74(3), p. 426-447.

Sebastian R.(2007). Managing Collaborative Design. Eburon, Delft, The Netherlands.

Si J., Marjanovic-Halburd L., Nasiri F., Bell S. (2016). Assessment Of Building-Integrated Green Technologies: A Review And Case Study On Applications Of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Method. Sustainable Cities and Society, 27, p.106-115.

Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, U.S.A.

Timor, M. (2011). Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi. Türkmen Kitabevi, Türkiye.

Triantaphyllou E. (2000). Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Kluwer Academic Publisher, London, UK.

Triantaphyllou E., Mann S.H. (1995). Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process For Decision Making in Engineering Applications: Some Challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practices, 2(1), p. 35-44.

Tsai W.H., Lin S.J., Lee Y.F., Chang Y.C., Hsu J.L. (2013). Construction Method Selection For Green Building Projects To Improve Environmental Sustainability By Using An MCDM Approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(10), p. 1487-1510.

Utaberta, N., Hassanpour, B., Bahar, M. A., & Ani, A. I. C. (2013). A Comprehensive Learning Of Architecture Education: Understanding Critique Session As Learning Process And Criteria-Based Assessment in The Architecture Design Studio. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 102, p. 21-32.

Webster H. (2006). Power, Freedom and Resistance: Excavating the Design Jury. Journal of Art and Design Education, vol.25, no.3, p. 286-296.

Williams, A., Ostwald M., Askland H.H. (2010). Assessing Creativity in the Context of Architectural Design Education. Proceedings DRS2010, Montreal, Canada.

Downloads

Published

28-12-2018

How to Cite

Harputlugil, T. (2018). Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) As An Assessment Approach For Architectural Design: Case Study of Architectural Design Studio. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 6(2), 217–245. https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2018.53

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 2 (2018)

Section

Articles

License

COPYRIGHT POLICY 

1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.

2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:

The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.

The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.

If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.

The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues. 

The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs. 

3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles. 

4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material. 

5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name. 

6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.