Selection of a Unit of Analysis
102 x It is not a common practice for architects to work with mechanical and
electrical engineers in Malaysia. x The actual professionals are not keen to be observed and also do not like
recordings their activities taken. x We had no access to a real project due to time limitation for PhD research.
x Architects are in practice for green building projects and they are not experts in this field.
For more reliability of collected data, more details about the process of improvement of skill of students are explained below. According to Nissen and Levitt 2002, skill level of team
members could improve through conducting training courses. In this way, they can perform better on their tasks. Nissen and Levitt also report that the level of rework was down
considerably. They used Simvision software to emphasize the improved performance of projects arising from improved skill level of team members. Their study supports the use of
Simvision in this study for evaluating the workflow performance. To improve team members’ skills, training courses were conducted before starting conceptual design please refer to the
technical report UPMFRSBEDITR4, 2010 – Please refer to Appendix 1 for summary of this report. Firstly, many professionals such as Associate Professor Doctor Nor Mariah
Adam mechanicalelectrical expert from Mechanical Engineering Department, had lecturing sessions for required mechanical and electrical requirements. Next step was conducting
research about the required technologies for green building projects. Then, students presented their literature review about abovementioned requirements refer to the published technical
report for more details. Using this process, they found all the required considerations about the required technologies. Finally, they attempted to consider all the technical requirements
through conceptual design stage. Afterwards, they presented their proposed concept to the
103 professionals in the field of architecture and also mechanical and electrical engineering fields.
The professionals commented on their work based on technical requirements to revise the proposed concept. All the evidences containing video records and also documents have
been attached to the published technical report.
The team created a concept to design a green building project for an institute in the same university. The study calls this undertaking ‘ITMA’ project. Figure 3.1 shows how five
groups were formed to investigate green building technologies including solar assisted air conditioning, wind turbine, daylight augmented lighting strategy, building integrated photo
voltaic system and rainwater harvesting and waste management refer to the provided technical report for more details about the technologies. Then, toward the process of
generating concept design proposals, three groups were formed. Each group for the design entails an expert from each five technology groups. Indeed, architectural students who had
studied the required technologies played the role of mechanicalelectrical experts. These three groups competed to propose a concept for the ITMA project. The winner group was the unit
of analysis for this study. The process of generating conceptual design consists of three steps as shown in Figure 3.1. Explanation of the selection process shall follow afterwards.
104
Figure 3.1. Process of Generating Design Proposals
All the three groups conducted the concept design for 6 hours on 15 March, 2010. To do data collection for this case study, the researcher recorded their activities
throughout the day. The groups presented their concept proposals at the end of the same day. This research purpose is to obtain the knowledge from mechanical side
which has to be considered during the conceptual design phase of building projects. The schedule for providing the concept design and presenting proposals is shown in
Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Schedule of ITMA project Description
Due Date
Issue 23 February 2010
Brief formulation 24 February 2010
Technological seminars 03 March 2010
Concept design 15 March 2010
Design presentation 30 March 2010
Assessing Proposals 16 April 2010
105
A jury panel – consisting of six professional architects and mechanicalelectrical engineers – commented the proposals to lead them to improve their concepts. The
pre-final presentation was held on 30 March, 2010 and final presentation for final judgment took place on 16 April, 2010. All three groups presented their concept
proposals specifically on how technical and architectural requirements were integrated. Assessment of the proposals was performed based on the scores shown in
Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. Assessment results detail Assessment
Group 1 Group 2
Group 3 Factors
Assessor Score percentage Score percentage Score percentage
Design concept and
strategy
1 8
16 10
20 3
6 2
9 18
9 18
8 16
3 6
12 8
16 6
12 4
8 16
9 18
9 18
5 8
16 7
14 7
14
Building form
1 7
14 10
20 4
8 2
9 18
9 18
9 18
3 7
14 9
18 6
12 4
8 16
9 18
7 14
5 8
16 7
14 7
14
Technological design
1 9
18 9
18 5
10 2
8 16
8 16
8 16
3 7
14 7
14 7
14
106
4 8
16 8
16 7
14 5
9 18
7 14
7 14
Architectural aesthetics
1 7
14 7
14 6
12 2
8 16
8 16
8 16
3 7
14 9
18 7
14 4
6 12
8 16
6 12
5 8
16 8
16 7
14
Presentation
1 9
18 7
14 7
14 2
9 18
8 16
8 16
3 8
16 9
18 7
14 4
8 16
9 18
8 16
5 8
16 8
16 6
12
Total Average
Score
1 8
16 8.6
17.2 5
10 2
8.6 17.2
8.4 16.8
8.2 16.4
3 7
14 8.4
16.8 6.6
13.2 4
7.6 15.2
8.6 17.2
7.4 14.8
5 8.2
16.4 7.4
14.8 6.8
13.6
After presenting proposals by groups, the panel conducted a meeting to discuss and vote on the winning concept. Finally, Group 2 was announced as the winner. As
demonstrated in Table 3.3, Group 2 had the highest mark considering the average earned marks. This result shows that voting and calculations produced similar results
for this competition.
107
Table 3.3. Final Assessment Results Overall Score
Average Groups
Assessor 1
Assessor 2
Assessor 3
Assessor 4
Assessor 5
Group 1
80 86
70 76
82 79
Group 2
86 84
84 86
74
83 Group 3
50 82
66 74
68 68
According to the results in Table 3.2, most of the assessors marked the concept proposed by Group 2 as higher than the other groups. Therefore, consensus among
the assessors resulted in Group 2’s winning the competition. Some photos for final presentation of the three groups are displayed in Figure 3.2 to Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.2. Final presentation Green Spine by Group 1
108
Figure 3.3. Final presentation Green Sprawl by Group 2
Figure 3.4. Final presentation Reciprocal lab by Group 3
109
Referring to the competition results in Table 3.3, Group 2’ proposal was chosen as the best proposed concept. After announcing the winner, the researcher interviewed
one of the panels who were expert in the context of technical requirements for Green Building projects. She also emphasized that Group 2 has considered the most
technical requirements in their proposed concept. Thus, Group 2 was chosen as the unit of analysis for further analysis.