Sources of challenges for sustainability in the building design – The relationship between designers and clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sustainability demands have changed the building design nature, which gained complexity due to the increased diversity of requirements, activities, agents, and tools. Building Information Modeling (BIM) has a potential to contribute to sustainability enabling the building integrated design, performance simulations, life cycle assessment and information use throughout the building life cycle. The aim of this paper is to investigate the sources of challenges in the relation between architectural and engineering (AE) design firms and clients (developers or private individuals) for promoting sustainability in the building design. Also, it is investigated if BIM has been implemented by the firms and how it relates to management and sustainability. The research method adopted is qualitative and participatory based on focus groups. Two groups were interviewed: eight AE design firms and six developers and/or construction companies. Analysing the research findings, the sources of challenges that were identified are the lack of definition and communication about the stakeholders’ sustainability approach; the lack of a more detailed design scope and required qualifications by the clients, but also the lack of business management and firm’s performance evaluation processes by designers; the traditional project delivery systems, traditional work relationships, tools and processes that do not support the collaboration needs. In addition, AE design firms’ organization affects the client relationship and design quality including the consideration of sustainability issues in the design solutions. The sources are found in the AE design firm’s processes of strategy planning, business and marketing, design, people, and knowledge management. So, further research will be carried out about managerial and organizational capabilities of AE design firms for sustainability and BIM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".