Developing a web based software for the evaluation of architectural designs

When the architectural design is handled based on process and product, we see that many parameters come into play at the point of decision making. Especially as the design problem gets complicated, the value parameters increase so much. Producing solutions to these complex problems only with personal judgments does not yield very productive results in the accuracy of the results. Decision sup- port systems with effective use are needed to select solution suggestions in the design process, at the point of converting personal judgments into real data. For this purpose, a structured decision support method on the fuzzy AHP approach for design evaluation is presented, and a web-based interface is introduced that increases the usability of the method in practice. The interface has been developed based on ASP.Net platform as a web-based evaluation software that allows the participation of many evaluators independent of time and space. The effective- ness and advantages of the developed software are discussed in evaluating the de- signs obtained in an architectural design studio environment. The software called DDSS (Design Decision Support Software) has shown that it can be applied more effectively in multi-criteria decision-making problems by eliminating the synthe- sis processes and providing the opportunity to reach faster results. Consequent- ly, when the decision support method presented is used through the developed software, it is seen that more conscious and objective evaluations can be made about the designs in the decision steps in the architectural design process, which has a complex and contradictory structure intertwined with abstract concepts as characters.

PDF

___

ckerman, J. S. (2013). Architec- ture. Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition, Encyclopedia Bri- tannica Inc.
AIA National & AIA California Council. (2007). Integrated Project De- livery: A Guide. American Institute of Architects (AIA), 21.
Akao, Y., Mazur, G. H., & King, B. (1990). In Y. Akao (Ed.), Quality Func- tion Deployment: Integrating Custom- er Requirements into Product Design. Cambridge: Productivity Press.
Alexander, C. (1964). Notes On The Synthesis Of Form. Cambridge: Har- vard University Press.
Armillotta, A. (2008). Selection of layered manufacturing techniques by an adaptive AHP decision model. Ro- botics and Computer-Integrated Manu- facturing, 24, 450-461.
Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP- VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117.
Bellman R. E., & Zadeh, L. A. (1977). Local and fuzzy Logics. In J. M. Dunn & G. Epstein, (Eds.), Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic, 103-165. Dor- drecht: Springer.
Bozbura, F. T., Beskese, A., & Kah- raman, C. (2007). Prioritization of hu- man capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 32, 1100-1112.
Brunelli, M. (2015). Introduction to the analytic hierarchy process. Springer International Publishing, (electronic). Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierar- chical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233-247.
Cakir, O., & Canbolat, M. (2008). A web-based decision support system for multi-criteria inventory classification using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 35, 1367-1378.
Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95, 649-655.
Chen, J. F., Hsieh, H. N., & Do, Q. H. (2015). Evaluating teaching perfor- mance based on fuzzy AHP and com- prehensive evaluation approach. Ap- plied Soft Computing, 28, 100-108.
Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: strategies for product design. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
Darke, J. (1979). The primary gen- erator and the design process. Design Studies, 1(1), 36-44.
Giaccardi, E., & Fischer, G. (2008). Creativity and evolution: a metadesign perspective. Digital Creativity, 19(1), 19-32.
Gregory, S. A. (1966). The design method. London: Springer.
Harputlugil, T., Gültekin, A. T., Prins, M., & Topçu, Y. İ. (2014). Ar- chitectural design quality assessment based on analytic hierarchy process: a case study (1). Metu Journal of the Fac- ulty of Architecture, 31(2), 139-161.
Herrera, F. (2005). Genetic fuzzy systems: status, critical considerations and future directions. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Research, 1(1), 59-67.
Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11, 229-241.
Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: the design process demystified. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Li, W., Yu, S., Pei, H., Zhao, C., & Tian, B. (2017) A hybrid approach based on fuzzy AHP and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic method for evaluation in- flight service quality. Journal of Air Transport Management, 60, 49-64.
Manupati, V. K., Ramkumar, M., & Samanta, D. (2018). A multi-criteria decision making approach for the ur- ban renewal in Southern India. Sus- tainable Cities and Society, 42, 471-481.
Naz, A., & Nadin, M. (2018). Ap- plication of fuzzy logic in design of an aesthetics-based interactive architec- tural space. IJARITAC, 9(2), 113-134.
Paksoy, T., Yapıcı Pehlivan, N., & Özceylan, E. (2013). Bulanık küme teorisi. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
Palabiyik, S., & Colakoglu, B. (2012). Mimari tasarım sürecinde son ürünün değerlendirilmesi: bir bulanık karar verme modeli. Megaron, 7(3), 191-206.
Pan, N. F. (2008). Fuzzy AHP ap- proach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method. Automation in Construction, 17, 958-965.
Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Cross N. G. 1991). Models of the design process: integrating across the disciplines. De- sign Studies, 12(4), 215-220.
Rowe, P, G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Saaty, L. T. (1980). The analytic hier- archy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York, London: McGraw-Hill International Book Co.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic decision process. European Journal of Operational Re- search, 48, 9-26.
Saaty, T. L. (1994a). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy pro- cess. Interfaces, 24(6), 19-43.
Saaty, T. L. (1994b). Highlights and critical points in the theory and appli- cation of the analytic hierarchy pro- cess. European Journal of Operational Research, 74, 426-47.
Saaty, T. L. (2001). Decision making for leaders, new edition. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Shafer, G. (1976). A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton: Prince- ton University Press.
Shamim, A., Hussain, H., & Shaikh, M. U. (2010). A framework for gen- eration of rules from decision tree and decision table. 2010 International Con- ference on Information and Emerging Technologies, Karachi, Pakistan.
Simon, M., & Hu, M. (2017). Val- ue by design - systematic design deci- sion making in the architectural design process. ARCC 2017: Architecture Of Complexity, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Sun, C. C. (2010). A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 7745-7754.
Taylan, O., Bafail, A. O., Abdulaal, R. M. S., & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Con- struction projects selection and risk assessment by Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing, 17, 105-116.
Toklu, M. C., Erdem, M. B., & Taskin, H. (2016). A fuzzy sequential model for realization of strategic planning in manufacturing firms. Computers & In- dustrial Engineering, 102, 512-519.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. In- formatiın and Control, 8, 338-353.
Zadeh, L. A. (1968), Fuzzy algo- rithms. Information and Control, 12(2), 94-102.
Zadeh, L. A. (1984). Making com- puters think like people. IEEE Spec- trum, 8, 26-32.
Zhuang, J., Hu, M., & Mousapour, F. (2017). Value-driven design process: a systematic decision-making frame- work considering different attribute preferences from multiple stakehold- ers. Journal of Solar Energy Engineer- ing, 139(2), 021001.1-021001.6.