Figure 1
Adapted double diamond method (DDM) for stakeholder engagement and value-driven design for performance.
Source: Authors.
Table 1
Characteristics of case studies A–C.
| CHARACTERISTIC | CASE STUDY A | CASE STUDY B | CASE STUDY C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Building typology | Mixed-use (commercial and community) | Arts and culture | School |
| Further details | Part of a master plan | New-build adjacent to a retrofit redevelopment | Part of a master plan |
| Aspirational performance |
|
| None stated |
| Gross internal floor area (m2) | 6,740 | 1,715 | 1,820 |
| Floors | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Country | Ireland | UK | Rwanda |
| Climate zone (Köppen–Geiger) | Cfb, temperate | Aw, tropical | |
| Further classification | Marine west coast, warm summer | Tropical savanna or tropical wet and dry | |
[i] Note: BREEAM = Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method; LEED = Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; RIAI = The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland; RIBA = The Royal Institute of British Architects; WELL = WELL Building Institute.
Sources: aEnerPHit Energy Standard for Retrofit and New Build (Passive House Institute 2012).
bBioregional (2018).
Table 2
Consultation survey question.
| SECTION | QUESTION |
|---|---|
| Motivation | Time, cost and quality have been traditional drivers in construction project management. Recently, carbon has been added to the list of drivers. How relatively important are these drivers of construction project management to you? |
| Explain your answer |
Figure 2
Contextualise workshop template: identify the drivers used for and barriers against maximising building performance.
Figure 3
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) decision tree covering technical, environmental, economic and social (TEES) performance aspects.
Figure 4
Carbon square consultation survey results for all case studies: How important are these drivers of construction management to you?
Table 3
Stakeholder responses to the carbon square consultation survey question relating to quality.
| CASE STUDY | STAKEHOLDER | EXAMPLE QUOTATIONS |
|---|---|---|
| A | Architect | ‘I believe the quality of a building has the largest impact upon its longevity’ |
| B | Architect | ‘Quality must remain high as if this drops than carbon will also increase over the long term’ |
| C | Architect | ‘High quality is part and parcel of sustainability (long design life etc.)’ ‘I value the quality of the works done. The better the quality, the more durable the works are, and so less maintenance’ ‘[Q]uality hopefully drives longevity which should reduce carbon in the long term’ |
Table 4
Stakeholder responses for the carbon square consultation survey question relating to carbon.
| CASE STUDY | STAKEHOLDER | EXAMPLE QUOTATIONS |
|---|---|---|
| A | Architect | ‘I think, as designers we have to put Carbon at the top of the agenda when taking on commissions so that we 1) educate our clients & 2) bring them on the journey to realising a high quality and sustainable project result’ |
| B | Engineer | ‘Carbon emissions are ultimately the most important driver on the basis of the existential crisis that we face’ |
| C | Architect | ‘Carbon considerations need to be placed high up on the agenda, because only the designers can control material choices’ |
Figure 5
Temporal impact assigned to the drivers and barriers discussed by participants.
Figure 6
Establish workshop: analytic hierarchy process (AHP) Level 3 global priorities for all case studies.
Figure 7
Participation success profile: median scores for stakeholder engagement.
Table 5
Cross-case median participation scores for both workshops.
| WORKSHOP | REPRESENTATION | INCORPORATION OF VALUES | COMPATIBILITY WITH OBJECTIVES | CONCEPTUAL IMPACTS | ATTITUDINAL IMPACTS | ITERATIVITY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contextualise | 4.3 | 4.8 | 4.3 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.8 |
| Priority weighting | 4.5 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 4.0 |
Table 6
Written feedback from stakeholders about the stakeholder engagement workshops.
| CASE STUDY | QUOTATIONS ABOUT THE EXERCISES |
|---|---|
| A | ‘The framework is a super useful briefing process—to align stakeholder objectives’ |
| B | ‘The workshops were incredibly value. Having stakeholders in the room, including the client[,] really helped to understand priorities for the project. I feel there would be significant value in this exercise at the beginning and throughout a project’ |
Figure 8
Example of systemic pathway identification for regional solutions.
Figure 9
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) individual priority results for case study B.