paperdownload.me · web viewtranslating user values enhances the quality of a housing environment...
TRANSCRIPT
Author’s Accepted Manuscript
Incorporating User Values into Housing Design through Indirect User Participation Using MEC-QFD Model
Vahid Moghimi, Mahmud Bin Mohd Jusan, Payam Izadpanahi, Jamaleddin Mahdinejad
www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe
PII:DOI:Reference:
S2352-7102(16)30153-X http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.11.012 JOBE202
To appear in: Journal of Building Engineering
Received date: 23 August 2016Revised date:12 November 2016Accepted date: 15 November 2016
Cite this article as: Vahid Moghimi, Mahmud Bin Mohd Jusan, Payam Izadpanahi and Jamaleddin Mahdinejad, Incorporating User Values into Housin Design through Indirect User Participation Using MEC-QFD Model, Journal o Building Engineering, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.11.012
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted fo publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version o the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, an review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered whic could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain
Incorporating User Values into Housing Design through Indirect User Participation Using MEC-
QFD Model
Vahid Moghimia,*, Mahmud Bin Mohd Jusana, Payam Izadpanahib, Jamaleddin
Mahdinejadc aDepartment of Architecture, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor
Bahru, Malaysia bDepartment of Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan, Isfahan,
Iran cDepartment of Architecture, Shahid Rajaee University, Tehran, Iran. *Corresponding author. [email protected]
Abstract
This study aims to incorporate user values into housing design. Incorporating user values is
essential for developing quality housing. Data was gathered in three stages using the Means-End
Chain and Quality Function Deployment models. To identify the factors that create values, the
MEC model was conducted using soft laddering interviews with 15 apartment occupants in
Bushehr, Iran. Next, weight assessments were done for value creators. With data from the first
phase, a hard laddering questionnaire survey of MEC was created and distributed among 150
respondents. Nine architects developed design strategies in a focus group discussion to establish
the House of Quality of QFD based on responses. The developed strategies involved four main
categories including Building Organizational Emphasis, Interior Design Emphasis, Exterior
Design Emphasis, and Indoor Environmental Emphasis. The combination of MEC and QFD
facilitates indirect user participation and fulfills person environment congruence.
Keywords
Incorporating user values; Quality housing; User participation; Means-end chain; Quality
Function Deployment
1. Introduction
The issue of translating end user values into their living environment is a universal
concern. This is because end user values play a fundamental role in delivering quality housing.
Åslund and Bäckström (2015) maintained that quality improvements are achieved based on the
creation of value for end-users. Cockton (2004) believed that quality in use and fit to context is
insufficient, and that design should be broadened to include the concept of value as the ultimate
goal. Efforts to enhance quality should focus on closing the gap between internal production
quality and external consumer values. Closing this gap means translating quality aspects through
the value chain (Schauerte, 2013). Evidence suggests that the creation of superior value for users
is an effective instrument for business success (Boztepe, 2007). Design practice, design thinking,
and users are beneficial for value creation (Kujala and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, 2009; Leavy,
2010). The quality of mass-produced housing in Iran is negatively affected by the disparity
between housing design and occupant values, along with a lack of user participation in housing
development (Asadi and Tahir, 2012; Berahman et al., 2013).
In Iran, qualitative housing design issues are of great concern. These issues stem from a
disparity between housing design and occupant lifestyle and values. This is considered part of
the recently acknowledged “crisis of identity” which is a major concern experienced by various
groups in Iran (Shojai and Mori, 2012). To create suitable design solutions, designers have to
refrain from foisting their values upon end-users (Siu, 2003). This is because architects and users
have different values and perceptions of built environments (Gibson, 1979; Moore, 1979).
Architects usually design mass produced houses without end-user inputs, thereby disregarding
the values of end-users. A failure to incorporate social aspects and user values has negative
effects on residents (Abbaszadeh et al., 2009). Users play a key role in value creation (Kujala
and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, 2009). The unsuccessful identification and incorporation of user
needs and user activity patterns results in inferior systems that do not have much value. Existing
issues in produced houses originate from incongruities between the values of designers and users
(Kowaltowski and Granja, 2011).
Several authors discussed the significance of values in housing (Hentschke et al., 2014;
Jansen, 2014; Kowaltowski and Granja, 2011). In recent years, there has been increased interest
in the incorporation and translation of user values into housing design (Boztepe, 2007; Edman,
2010; Flanagan et al., 2008; Jensen and Maslesa, 2015; Kujala and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila,
2009; Van de Poel, 2013; Van den Hoven, 2007). This is because value creation is an important
factor in quality design for end users (Moghimi et al., 2016). Establishing optimum
psychological congruence between users and their built environment is crucial (Sime, 1986).
Place making is shifting away from the geometric design of spaces towards a more
comprehensive consideration of user perceptions and behaviours within physical settings
(Mourshed and Zhao, 2012). Since uncertainty still exists regarding strategies for incorporating
user values into housing design, it is necessary to examine how designers deliver user values in
the form of quality housing. Research is required to develop design practice tools that enable
designers to actively enhance value creation. This study aims to translate and incorporate user
values into housing design. Two models, MEC and QFD in three sequential stages were
combined to accomplish the objectives of this study.
2. Incorporating User Values through Indirect User Participatory Design Process
User participation is essential for the development of sustainable housing (Gustavsson
and Elander, 2016). Effective user participation fosters project sustainability (Kaatz et al., 2005).
Creating suitable design solutions requires user participation (Aguwa et al., 2012). User
participation is a process which gives opportunities to both designers and users to express their
ideas (Luck, 2012). It facilitates user involvement in essential design decisions, helping them
express their needs in their desired living environment (Lee and Li, 2011). It may occur in the
planning phase, the design phase, construction, or the evaluation phase (Saleh, 2006). User
involvement not only helps designers to meet user values, it is also important during the
construction phase because it prevents unnecessary modifications after occupancy (Jusan, 2010).
Keinonen (2009) identifies three types of user participation: inactive, reactive, and
proactive. Saleh (2011) divides participation levels into five categories depending on architect
control or user requirements. The first level is “non-participating”, where the architect is the
main controller of the project. The second level is “low level”, where user participation is
insignificant. The third level is “equally-balanced level”, in which the opinion of the user is
equal to the opinion of the architect. The fourth level is “high level”, in which the architect is
only there to guide and to advise the user. The fifth level is “top level”, where the role of the
architect disappears and the user is the main controller of the project.
In spite of the significance of user participation, a lack of user participation in housing
development is typical in Asian countries (Lee and Li, 2011). For most Iranians, the designs of
their dwellings are far from their ideal conditions (Berahman et al., 2013). The problem is that
existing approaches that involve user participation are not applicable or are difficult to conduct
within current mass housing production. There is a need for an Indirect User Participatory
Design Process (IUPDP) to accommodate user participation in the current process of housing
design and delivery. The nature of user values influences design solutions. IUPDP refers to the
identification, structuring, analysis, rationalization, and translation of user values into relevant
design attributes. It was developed to formulate a method for processing indirect user
participation and translating user values into housing design. Figure 1 shows a representation of
IUPDP, which shows the work process divided into mechanisms, phases, and participants. The
boxes in the middle show the phases. Mechanisms are on the left side and participants are on the
right side and they specify research approaches and participants, respectively. The arrows
leading into the boxes represent inputs while the arrows leading out from the boxes represent
outputs. Inputs are converted into outputs throughout each phase.
Mechanisms Phases Participants
Users’ Perception
Soft
Defining Value Creators
Laddering
List of Value Creators asthe Quality aspects of
Dwelling Design
Hard Weight Assessment of
Users
Laddering Value Chains
Priority of ValueCreators according to
their significance
Quality Function
Translating Value
Creators into Housing Designers
Deployment
Design
Design Attributes
Translating user values enhances the quality of a housing environment and makes indirect
user participation possible. QFD is a major tool used in the indirect participatory design process
and the incorporation of user values. It is a model that forms links between people and the
housing industry. The HoQ of QFD was used to develop design attributes based on customer
voices. The process of translating user values through indirect participation was done by
examining value creators and conceptualizing design attributes. MEC and soft laddering were the
mechanisms used to identify factors that create value for future occupants. The second phase of
this process involves the weight assessment of value creators for further analysis. Measuring the
importance of identified requirements is the second step in establishing the HoQ of QFD.
Although the data obtained from MEC and soft laddering is ranked according to their level of
significance, the ranking is only based on an ordinal scale and the distance of differences
between the weights of elements are unclear. To overcome these weaknesses and prepare the
data for QFD, a hard laddering approach for the MEC model using Association Weight Matrices
(AWM) was adopted. This stage targeted housing occupants as the sample population. After
defining value creators and prioritizing them according to their weight of importance, the data
was transferred into HoQ of QFD. Using this mechanism, designers developed the necessary
design considerations for incorporating user values.
MEC-QFD makes indirect user participation possible. Designers represent users using
user information. The development of design strategies based on identified needs and concerns
contributes to indirect user participation, allowing users to meet their desired values. It also
decreases the existing gap between users, designers, and the housing industry.
2.1 MEC
MEC is a model that details how user values are fulfilled by services or products
(Gutman, 1982). It is a model that draws a connection between conscious user choices, and the
attributes that contribute to achieving values (Lagerkvist et al., 2012). By asking questions like
“Why is that important to you?”, laddering describes the relationships between attributes,
consequences, and values (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). Means-end chains or laddering refers
to the links between attributes, consequences, and values. Studies that have adopted the laddering
technique used “soft” or “hard” laddering techniques (Voss et al., 2007). Attributes are known as
the characteristics or properties of the goods, services or performances that customers desire or
pursue (Jung and Kang, 2010). Consequences refer to what the product provides or does to the
customers at a psychosocial or functional level (Ter Hofstede et al., 1998). Valette-Florence and
Rapacchi (1991) believe that personal values are a part of life that provide guidance. Schwartz
(1994) defines values as “desirable goals, varying in importance which provide
guiding principles in people’s lives”. MEC has been used by several housing studies (Alaraji and
Jusan, 2015; Bako and Jusan, 2012; Coolen and Hoekstra, 2001; Hentschke et al., 2014; Jusan,
2010; Lundgren and Lic, 2010).
2.2 QFD
Quality Function Deployment is an accepted tool used to design customer-driven
products (Gremyr and Raharjo, 2013). Akao (2004) explains QFD as “a method which
establishes a design quality through translating customers’ demands into design attributes and
also important quality assurances to be used throughout the production process”. This method
transfers expected desires into quality characteristics and creates systematic development using
the relationships between customer needs and technical characteristics (Ictenbas and Eryilmaz,
2011; Lee et al., 2000). To practice QFD, the House of Quality (HoQ) must be established. The
HoQ provides product-design factors and their associations, namely customer needs and their
importance, design attributes, the relationship between customer needs and design attributes, and
correlations between design attributes (Chen et al., 2013). HoQ is made up of an expected quality
chart combined with a quality attributes deployment chart (Akao, 2004). HoQ demonstrates how
engineering characteristics meet customer requirements (Li et al., 2014). It has seven
components (Liao and Kao, 2014). To establish HoQ, the components must be fulfilled in their
numerical order of 1 to 7 (Figure 2). Room 1 is considered to contain customer needs and
requirements. Room 2 presents the relative importance of these requirements. Room 3 has
information required to transform customer needs into technical characteristics. The correlation
between the formulated technical characteristics is depicted in room 4, whereas the correlation
between each of the customer’s wants and each technical characteristic is in room 5. Rooms 6
and 7 have the importance weights and a prioritized level of quality improvements to be made
(Haron et al., 2015).
Correlation Matrix(4)
Design Attributes(3)
Customers’ Needs
Relationship Matrix Customers’
(5) Evaluation
(1)
(2)
Importance Weight
(6)
Prioritized Level of Quality
Improvement
(7)
Figure 2: House of Quality (HoQ)
3. Research Methodology
The process of incorporating user values into the housing design process is done by
identifying the factors that create user values and translating them into proper housing design
attributes. For this purpose, two models, MEC and QFD, were combined.
3.1 Probing Value Creators
QFD is a major tool for developing the necessary design attributes for value
incorporation. According to QFD methodology, identifying the voice of the customer is the first
step. In this study, MEC and soft laddering were adopted to probe users for factors that create
value. The first phase of this study used a modified version of the laddering approach as
suggested by Coolen and Hoekstra (2001). Identifying value creators residing in the
consequences zone was followed by exploring both values and attributes. By adopting soft
laddering interviews, user perceptions of essential functions, purposes, and characteristics
leading to user values were examined. To accomplish this objective, three types of questions
including “What”, “How” and “Why” were adopted in a sequential manner. “What” questions
aimed to determine expected factors. “How” questions tried to ascertain housing attributes that
satisfy identified expectations. This process was continued by asking “Why” questions to
determine the details behind the importance of these desired key factors. Data was analysed
based on the MEC model using a content analysis tool. Through a purposive sampling, 15 mass
apartment dwellers were individually interviewed.
3.2 Weight Assessment of Value creators
Conducting the hard laddering technique utilizing association weight matrices starts by
obtaining ladders, constructing association matrices, constructing aggregate association matrices,
constructing hierarchical value maps, and determining value weights and dominant ladders
(Chiu, 2005). In this study, the ladders acquired in the first phase were used to construct an
Attributes-Consequences (AC) and Consequences-Values (CV) association weight matrix
questionnaire. This provided two tables made up of Attributes-Consequences and Consequences-
Values. In order to establish aggregate association matrices, respondents were asked to determine
the association strengths between Attributes-Consequences and Consequences-Values. This was
done by using a 10-point scale ranging from (1) “not associated” and (10) “strongly associated”.
In addition, respondents were required to specify the perceived importance of each attribute and
consequence through the 10-point scale. For the hard laddering technique, respondents were
selected using convenience sampling. Data were gathered from 150 housing occupants. 124
questionnaires were filled correctly, indicating a response rate of 83%.
3.3 Incorporating User Values into Housing Design
The necessary design attributes for incorporating user values were established using the
HoQ of QFD through conducting a structured focus group discussion. According to Wilson
(2014), a focus group session is run with five to twelve people. Based on the data obtained from
“Bushehr Construction Engineering Organization”, architects who work in mass housing
production were contacted. Nine of the contacted architects replied, which was enough to
conduct this study. Identified value creators were considered as the “voice of customer” for QFD
applications. The participants were asked to suggest relevant design strategies to fulfil the voice
of customer. Participants were required to specify association strengths between design strategies
and value creators. The relationship matrix was established based on four levels of 9, 6, 3 or 1
points. Empty cells depict no association between value creators and design strategies.
Establishing the relationship chart between value creators and design strategies was followed by
calculating the importance and relative weight of design strategies. Using an independent scoring
method, the Degree of Importance (DI) of user expectations was converted into Importance
Weights (IW) and the Relative Weights (RW) for housing design strategies. The IW and RW
were computed as follows:
∑∑ ∑
4. Results
Data was collected from three different groups of participants as described in Table 1.
Table 1: Demographic Characteristic of Respondents
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3Demographic Items Frequency Frequency Percentage FrequencyGender
Male 8 61 49 8Female 7 63 51 1Total 15 124 100 9
Marital statusSingle 8 50 40 5Married 7 70 57 4Widow - 1 1 -Divorced - 3 2 -Total 15 124 100 9
Age20-30 7 69 56 731-40 6 36 29 241-50 2 15 12 -51-60 - 2 1 -Over 60 - 2 2 -Total 15 124 100 9
Level of educationLess than diploma - - - -Diploma level - 12 10 -Bachelor degree 10 67 54 3Master degree 5 44 35 6PhD degree - 1 1 -Total 15 124 100 9
Household Monthly IncomeLess than 335 $ 7 45 36 -Between 335 $ to 670 $ - 43 35 -Between 670 $ RM to 1000 $ 3 21 17 -Between 1000 $ to 1335 $ 2 9 7 -More than 1335 $ 3 6 5 -Total 15 124 100 -
Work ExperienceLess than 5 years - - - 1Between 5 to 7 years - - - 3Between 8 to 10 years - - - 4Between 11 to 13 years - - - 1More than 13 years - - - -Total - - - 9
4.1 Identification of Value Creators
Identifying value creators through the use of MEC model utilizing soft laddering
interviews demonstrated that the concept of value creators has both functional and psychological
aspects. These include environmental awareness, spaciousness, pleasant environment, privacy,
beauty, comfort, healthy environment, order, vitality, integrity and intimacy of the family,
efficiency, safe environment, and saving resources. The perception of value creators is
influenced by family security, achievement, benevolence, conformity, hedonism, self-direction,
and stimulation.
Table 2: Elements of Value Chains
Elements of Value Chains Variable NameAttributes Proper dimension of housing spaces
FurnitureArticulating Open and Closed SpaceWindowsInterior finishing materialsSeparation between public and private spacesFamily togetherness spotSpace coloursPosition of space accessibilityNature
Consequences Pleasant environmentVitalityHealthy EnvironmentComfortPrivacySaving resourcesSpaciousnessOrderEnvironmental awarenessEfficiencyIntegrity and intimacy of the familyBeautySafe environment
Values Self-directionStimulationHedonismAchievementFamily securityConformityBenevolence
4.2 Weight Assessment of Value creators
The identification of value creators was followed by measuring the weight of value chains. Table
3 shows the importance weight of value creators.
Table 3: Weight assessment of value creators
Value Creators Degree ofImportance
Saving resources 0.51Beauty 0.57Spaciousness 0.57Environmental awareness 0.59Order 0.64Privacy 0.65Efficiency 0.67Pleasant environment 0.67Safe Environment 0.71Intimacy and integrity of the family 0.72Vitality 0.73Comfort 0.78Healthy environment 0.78
4.3 Identifying Design Attributes for Value Incorporation
The developed strategies aimed to fulfil 13 quality factors known as value creators. As
shown by the HoQ matrix (Figure 3), these strategies are divided into four main categories of
design emphasis. Based on the cumulative percentage of the main categories of necessary
housing attributes, “Building organizational emphasis” has the highest degree of importance
(34%), followed by “Interior design emphasis” (29%), “Exterior design emphasis” (20%), and
“Indoor environmental emphasis” (17%).
As Figure 3 demonstrates, “Having audio-visual contact with the outside of the housing
unit”, with the relative weight of 6.38%, is the design strategy with the greatest influence on the
perception of spaciousness, environmental awareness, creation of safe as well as pleasant
environment, human vitality, privacy and comfort. At the relation level of 6 points, it impacts
resource saving and efficiency.
The second most influential design strategy included “Sufficiency of daylight distribution
in interior spaces” with the relative weight of 5.83%. At the relation level of 9 points, this
attribute plays an essential role in saving resources, perception of spaciousness, environmental
awareness, creation of pleasant as well as safe environment and occupant vitality. Daylight
distribution beautifies housing environments and creates safe environments at the relation level
of 6 points. The significance of “Appropriate Lighting” was less than daylight distribution. At
the highest relation level between design attributes and users’ requirements, this attribute with
the relative weight of 4.99% has a great impact on the similar users’ requirements satisfied by
daylight distribution excluding saving resources, and instead of that it has a noticeable role in
beautification of living environments.
The relative weight of “Adequacy of spatial layout size and proportions according to the
human needs” was 5.7%. At the highest level of relation, adequate size affects the occupants’
perception of spacious spaces and beautiful environments. Adequate size and proportion has a
significant role in efficiency of housing, creation of pleasant environment, dweller vitality and
comfort. At the relation level of 6 points, this attribute impacts integrity and intimacy of the
family.
At the highest relation level, while “Housing Private Spaces” with the relative importance
weight of 5.41% is related to protecting occupant privacy, enhancing occupant efficiency,
creating safe as well as pleasant environment, occupant vitality and comfort, “Housing Public
Spaces” with the relative weight of 4.73% impacts the perception of spaciousness, creation of
pleasant environment and enhancing integrity and intimacy of the family members. The relative
weight of “Separation between public, semi-public and private spaces” is not as significant as the
attributes of private and public space. This attribute has the relative weight of 5.01% and
influences order of housing environment, occupant privacy as well as efficiency, creation of a
pleasant environment and resident comfort at the most significant level.
“Access priority consideration in the spatial layout designing” has the relative weight of
5.32%. At the relation level of 9 points, it influences the order of housing spaces. It also plays a
noticeable role in protecting occupant privacy, comfort, efficiency and creation of safe and
pleasant environment.
“Interior Finishing Materials” possessing the relative weight of 5.24% has significant role
in occupants vitality, resource saving, beautification of living environments, promoting
environmental awareness, creation of pleasant and healthy environments.
“Adequacy of Natural ventilation and air circulation” having the relative weight of 4.25%
is related to saving resources, efficiency, creation of pleasant environment, and occupants vitality
and comfort at the highest relation level. The participated designers perceived that proper
furniture arrangements with the relative weight of 4.21% has significant impact on beautification
of housing environments, perception of spaciousness, order of housing environment, and
integrity and intimacy of the family.
At the relation level of 9 points, “Providing occupants with pleasant view of the
surrounding environment” with the relative weight of 4% has effects on the perception of beauty,
environmental awareness and occupant vitality. Designers believed that considering diversity of
spaces affects experiencing pleasant environments and occupant vitality at the relation level of 9
points.
At the highest relation level, “Adjacency of complementary spaces in terms of functional
aspects” with the relative weight of 3.69% has impacts on order of housing environment,
dwelling efficiency, creation of pleasant environment and resident comfort. “Coherent
interrelations between housing spaces” possessing the relative weight of 3.61% impacts the same
users’ requirements influenced by “Adjacency of complementary spaces in terms of functional
aspects” excluding efficiency.
These results highlight the most influential design strategies and their relation with the
users’ requirements. These results provide designers with a priority list of the most effective
design strategies.
Build
ing
Org
aniza
tiona
l Em
phas
isIn
terio
r Des
ign
Emph
asis
Ind
oor E
nviro
nmen
tal E
mph
asis
Exte
rior D
esig
n Em
phas
is
semi-public and private spaces
Separation between public,consideration in the spatial layout designing
Access priority
Well-designed spatial layout circulation
spaces in terms of functional aspectsAdjacency of complementary
spacesCoherent interrelations between housing
Housing private spaces
Housing semi-public spaces
Housing public spaces
view of the surrounding environmentProviding occupants with pleasant
circulationAdequacy of Natural ventilation and air
Air Conditioning
distribution in interior spacesSufficiency of daylight
Well-designed furniture arrangements
of building components in the spacesQuality and functional performance
Appropriate Lighting
fulfill aesthetical and functional aspectsAdopting interior finishing materials to
Diversity of housing spaces
proportions according to the human needsAdequacy of spatial layout size and
with the outside off the housing unitsHaving audio-visual contact
Façade attributes performance
fulfill aesthetical and functional aspectsAdopting facade finishing materials to
aspects in designing building formConsideration of aesthetical and functional
buildingDesigning Proper volume proportions of
surrounding environmentHarmonization of buildings with the
Degree of Importance
3 3 9 9 9 9 6 9 6 9542
.5.
01
6 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 6445
.5.
32
1 6 3 6 6 6 9 1 9 1 31.8
53.
71
3 6 1 9 1 9 9 9 1 6931
.3.
69
1 3 1 9 6 6 9 1 9 1 9330
.3.
61
3 6 9 9 9 9 1 9 9 3 46.3
75.
41
3 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 18.9
92.
21
3 9 3 6 1 6 9 6 9 3 3 3 6040
.4.
73
9 6 9 1 6 3 1 6 9 3 34.3
34.
00
9 3 9 9 3 9 9 3 4536
.4.
25
6 9 3 3 9 9 28.3
93.
31
9 6 9 9 1 1 3 9 6 3 9 9 3 0450
.5.
83
1 9 9 1 9 1 6 3 1 9 3 3 1 36.1
24.
21
6 3 3 1 9 3 9 9 3 3 9 6 3 44.6
05.
20
9 9 3 1 3 9 9 3 9 6 3 42.8
34.
99
9 9 1 9 1 3 3 9 3 1 9 3 9 9844
.5.
24
3 6 3 3 6 9 3 3 9 3 1 32.8
93.
83
3 9 9 1 3 3 9 9 3 6 9 9 1 48.9
35.
70
6 3 9 9 1 9 6 9 9 1 9 9 3 7054
.6.
38
6 6 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 1 27.2
43.
18
9 9 3 9 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3032
.3.
77
3 9 3 6 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 3319
.2.
25
1 9 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 7612
.1.
49
1 9 9 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 8622
.2.
66
0.51
0.57
570.
590.
0.64
0.65
0.67
670.
710.
720.
730.
0.78
780.
Impo
rtan
ce W
eigh
t
Savi
ng re
sour
ces
Beau
tySp
acio
usne
ss
Envir
onme
ntalaw
arene
ss
Orde
r
Priv
acy
Effici
ency
Pleasa
ntenv
ironm
ent
Safe
env
ironm
ent
Inte
grity
and
intim
acy
of th
e
fam
ilyVi
talit
y
Com
fort
Healt
hyen
viron
ment
Perc
ent
Users' Requirements
Figure 3 : House of Quality (HoQ) Matrix
5. Discussion
The most important strategy for meeting user values involves experiencing audio-visual
contacts from outside the housing unit. Multiple suggested strategies were satisfied by utilizing
relevant building components. “Having audio-visual contact with outside from the housing
units”, “Sufficiency of daylight distribution in interior spaces”, “Adequate natural ventilation and
air circulation”, and “Providing occupants with pleasant view of the surrounding environment”
were all satisfied by a proper consideration of building components connecting the housing unit
with the outside world. It is crucial to adopt the most effective attributes of relevant building
components to improve strategy effectiveness. Attributes related to dimension, position, and
orientation play a major role in improving functional performance.
Connecting indoor and outdoor environment prevents the perception of cramped spaces
and creates a sense of spaciousness. “Adequacy of natural ventilation” and “Sufficiency of
daylight distribution” create a pleasant environment that supports human comfort, physiological
well-being, and psychological well-being. Studies show that occupants are better off when they
have access to natural lighting and natural views (Charnofsky, 2012). Kaplan (1995) showed that
viewing nature through a window decreases frustration, improves physical and psychological
health, and increases satisfaction. Environmental awareness influences psychological senses and
human vitality. Natural environments bring about positive changes in emotional states and
reduce negative moods. These positive changes in emotional states are essential for recovery
from psycho-physiological stress (Ulrich et al., 1991). According to a recent study, human
vitality is directly associated with exposure to nature (Capaldi et al., 2014). The connection
between man and nature improves vitality and comfort. The type and quality of a view also
influences dweller physical and psychological comfort (Aries et al., 2010). All these positive
factors are accomplished by incorporating windows that provide adequate sunlight, natural
ventilation, and a good view of nature (Korkut et al., 2010). Improper consideration of these
relevant attributes has a negative impact on privacy.
The third most important strategy for meeting user values involves the provision of
adequate space. Stamps (2008) views sufficient space as a vital human need. The results of this
study match the findings of Kowaltowski and Granja (2011), who determined that adequate
space is an important housing design value. Franklin (2001) identified adequate space as an
indicator of quality. Alaraji and Jusan (2015) found that attributes for spatial improvement and
the provision of desired space are strategies for meeting occupant values.
Adequate space has a significant impact on the functional quality of a building.
Functional quality is related to the usability of housing spaces and includes the degree that
spaces are well designed for intended activities. Desired space makes housing environments
more effective. Space efficiency is a factor which affects housing preference decision-making
(Moghimi and Jusan, 2015). One of the most important aspects of quality architecture involves
the concept of usability. Usability has three main dimensions, effectiveness, efficiency and
satisfaction (Alexander, 2008). The effectiveness of organization of spaces regarding the
usability of the living environment is what defines efficiency. The efficiency of a housing
environment refers to achieving occupant satisfaction through facilitating a wide range of desired
activities with minimum human effort and time. Spaciousness affects proximity, privacy, and
crowding. Accommodating desired space protects occupant privacy, prevents crowding,
increases comfort, and increases healthy social interactions (Carney, 2007).
Private, public, semi-public spaces and their separation are strategies for satisfying user
values. In this study, the significance of private spaces is far greater than public and semi-public
areas. Identifying housing spaces based on their degree of privacy is a principle attribute of
Iranian architecture (Shabani et al., 2011). Privacy refers to control over acoustical, visual,
olfactory, informational, and physical access. Private spaces that are separate from public and
semi-public areas prevent privacy invasions, improve housing design, and provide a safe and
pleasant environment. The comfort of these private spaces is related to the degree of privacy,
well-being, and convenience (Rybczynski and von Staa, 1996). Comfort is an influential factor
affecting individual performance (Chappells and Shove, 2004). Allowing occupants to control
social interactions is beneficial to social relationships. Control in this context refers to the ability
to change a space or restrict access. Sommer (1969) concluded that a failure to identify
boundaries and a lack of organization causes spatial disputes. When people do not feel in control
of what happens to them in a space, they become stressed, discouraged, and frustrated (Augustin,
2009). The identification of spaces that meets expectations for private, public and semi-public
areas is necessary.
Access consideration is an influential factor in housing design. The importance of access
is related to privacy. Access identifies an environment and each environment requires a specific
degree of privacy. Access is a spatial layout design strategy that improves occupant control over
social contacts and it is an important principle of Iranian architecture.
Interior finishing materials that fulfil aesthetical and functional needs are an important
strategy. Beautifying living environments, saving resources, creating hygienic environments, and
improving human vitality involve designer perceptions on interior finishing materials. Interior
finishing materials improve housing values (Lang and Nelson, 2007). Interior finishing materials
influence the aesthetics of a living environment (Bako and Jusan, 2012; Hentschke et al., 2014;
Kowaltowski and Granja, 2011). Interior finishing materials play a critical role in efficient
buildings. Efficiency involves the effectiveness of a wall in achieving maximum performance at
minimum cost with minimum maintenance requirements. The selection of a wall that is
functional, cost-effective, and easy to maintain is valuable (Lavy and Dixit, 2010). Proper
interior finishing materials can positively affect human efficiency and productivity because of its
physical and psychological effects (Rice et al., 2007). Pellegrini, et al. (1981) found that room
colours impact motor activity and emotional states in children. Another study found that colour
has a vital role in addressing the physiological and psychological functions of occupants (Jalil et
al., 2012; Shamsul et al., 2013). Housing spaces should utilize interior finishing materials with
attributes that fit the expected affordances of a particular space.
Satisfying user values in housing design necessitates a diversity of spaces. A diversity of
spaces makes a housing environment pleasant. Monotony in housing design is boring and
negatively impacts value. A house is composed of different spaces that are meant for different
functions. These spaces are used by a specific group of occupants at a particular time. It is
imperative that these places are properly located and support adjacent areas. Coherent
interrelations between housing spaces are critically important. These factors influence the
usability and functional quality of a building.
6. Conclusion
The goal of this study was to develop strategies for incorporating user values for
architectural applications in housing design though indirect user participation. Building
Organizational Emphasis, Interior Design Emphasis, Exterior Design Emphasis, and Indoor
Environmental Emphasis involved the required means for applying user values to dwelling
design. Incorporating user values into housing design is fundamental for delivering quality
housing and achieving person environment congruence. Applying user values to dwelling design
involves the consideration of human perceptions for their living environment, creating a value
oriented housing design.
Using QFD in housing development systematizes the process of developing design
attributes. Through systematic procedures, housing design considerations are developed based on
the perceived values of occupants. The outcome of HoQ ranks suggested design attributes
according to their importance. Based on this ranking, it is possible for designers to prioritize
design attributes that meet end-user values. Providing mass housing designers with a list of
priority-based approaches increases the chance of successful housing design. Prioritization of
requirements is necessary, but the least important strategies should not be neglected. This study
aims to guide designers in adopting effective and efficient strategies.
IUPDP using MEC-QFD facilitates an effective processing of indirect user participation
for incorporating user values. It is beneficial to users and designers in the construction process.
Although the process of user participation is indirect, the outcome is effective. IUPDP allows
users to explain their views on possible housing developments. It helps users make sure that their
expectations and requirements are well-defined at the initial stage of development, which leads
to the fulfillment of their values. These factors are used to check how well the performance and
compliance of developed concepts align with user expectations, ensuring the quality of provided
housing units. The encapsulation of important aspects in a solution-neutral format enables a
design team to formulate design solutions that meet user needs in innovative ways unconstrained
by initial design. Project risk is decreased by properly defining important aspects that accomplish
user values and resolve “downstream” problems in initial development. Through this approach,
the probability of missing user expectations was mitigated. Clarifying project requirements
enhances communication and teamwork. The large amount of repetition and duplication in the
conventional construction process is decreased, shortening project duration and decreasing costs.
This constitutes a mutually beneficial outcome where designers are sure that they have satisfied
occupants, and occupants secure housing that fulfills their values.
References
Abbaszadeh, S., Ibrahim, R., Baharuddin, M. N., and Salim, A. (2009). Identifying Persian Traditional Socio-Cultural Behaviors for Application in the Design of Modern High-Rise Residences. International Journal of Architectural Research, 121.
Aguwa, C. C., Monplaisir, L., and Turgut, O. (2012). Voice of the Customer: Customer Satisfaction Ratio Based Analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(11), 10112-10119.
Akao, Y. (2004). Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into ProductDesign: Productivity Press.
Alaraji, K. A. M. H., and Jusan, M. B. M. (2015). Flexible House Attributes as Perceived by the End-Users. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 10(7), 18313-18324.
Alexander, K. (2008). Usability: Philosophy and Concepts. Usability of workplaces, Phase, 2.Aries, M. B. C., Veitch, J. A., and Newsham, G. R. (2010). Windows, View, and Office Characteristics
Predict Physical and Psychological Discomfort. Journal of environmental psychology, 30(4), 533-541.
Asadi, M., and Tahir, M. M. (2012). The Social Relationship of Contemporary Residants in Iranian Housing. e-BANGI, 7(1), 8.
Åslund, A., and Bäckström, I. (2015). Creation of Value to Society–a Process Map of the Societal Entrepreneurship Area. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(3-4), 385-399.
Augustin, S. (2009). Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior Architecture: John Wiley & Sons. Bako, Z. Z., and Jusan, M. M. (2012). Motivational Factors Influencing Housing Interior Finish Choice
and Preference. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 177-186.
Berahman, P., Memarzia, K., and Habib, F. (2013). Stages of Participation in the Dwelling Process-an Analytical Model of Iran. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 14(4).
Boztepe, S. (2007). Toward a Framework of Product Development for Global Markets: A User-Value-Based Approach. Design Studies, 28(5), 513-533.
Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., and Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The Relationship between Nature Connectedness and Happiness: A Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 5.
Carney, K. (2007). Affordable Housing: A Holistic Design Approach to the Domestic Environment.Washington State University.
Chappells, H., and Shove, E. (2004). Comfort: A Review of Philosophies and Paradigms.Charnofsky, L. (2012). The Interrelationship between Human Behavior and Sustainability in the Built
Environment. Kent State University.Chen, L.-H., Ko, W.-C., and Tseng, C.-Y. (2013). Fuzzy Approaches for Constructing House of Quality
in QFD and Its Applications: A Group Decision-Making Method. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 60(1), 77-87.
Chiu, C.-M. (2005). Applying Means-End Chain Theory to Eliciting System Requirements and Understanding Users Perceptual Orientations. Information & Management, 42(3), 455-468.
Cockton, G. (2004). From Quality in Use to Value in the World. Paper presented at the CHI'04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems.
Coolen, H., and Hoekstra, J. (2001). Values as Determinants of Preferences for Housing Attributes.Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16(3-4), 285-306.
Edman, K. W. (2010). The Concept of Value in Design Practice–an Interview Study.Flanagan, M., Howe, D., and Nissenbaum, H. (2008). Embodying Values in Technology: Theory and
Practice. Information technology and moral philosophy, 322-353.Franklin, B. J. (2001). Discourses of Design: Perspectives on the Meaning of Housing Quality And?
Good? Housing Design. Housing, Theory and Society, 18(1-2), 79-92. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Psychology Press.
Gremyr, I., and Raharjo, H. (2013). Quality Function Deployment in Healthcare: A Literature Review and Case Study. International journal of health care quality assurance, 26(2), 135-146.
Gustavsson, E., and Elander, I. (2016). Sustainability Potential of a Redevelopment Initiative in Swedish Public Housing: The Ambiguous Role of Residents’ Participation and Place Identity. Progress in Planning, 103, 1-25.
Gutman, J. (1982). A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization Processes. The Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60-72.
Haron, N. A., Abdul-Rahman, H., Wang, C., and Wood, L. C. (2015). Quality Function Deployment Modelling to Enhance Industrialised Building System Adoption in Housing Projects. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(7-8), 703-718.
Hentschke, C. S., Formoso, C. T., Rocha, C. G., and Echeveste, M. E. S. (2014). A Method for Proposing Valued-Adding Attributes in Customized Housing. Sustainability, 6(12), 9244-9267.
Ictenbas, B. D., and Eryilmaz, H. (2011). Linking Employers’ Expectations with Teaching Methods:Quality Function Deployment Approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 568-572.
Jalil, N. A., Yunus, R. M., and Said, N. S. (2012). Environmental Colour Impact Upon Human Behaviour: A Review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 54-62. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.062
Jansen, S. J. T. (2014). Different Values, Different Housing? Can Underlying Value Orientations Predict Residential Preference and Choice? Housing, Theory and Society, 31(3), 254-276.
Jensen, P. A., and Maslesa, E. (2015). Value Based Building Renovation – a Tool for Decision-Makingand Evaluation. Building and Environment, 92, 1-9. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.04.008
Jung, Y., and Kang, H. (2010). User Goals in Social Virtual Worlds: A Means-End Chain Approach.Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 218-225.
Jusan, M. B. M. (2010). Means End Chain, Person Environment Congruence and Mass Housing Design.Open House International, 35(3), 76-86.
Kaatz, E., Root, D., and Bowen, P. (2005). Broadening Project Participation through a Modified Building Sustainability Assessment. Building research & information, 33(5), 441-454.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework. Journal of environmental psychology, 15(3), 169-182.
Keinonen, T. (2009). Design Contribution Square. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 23(2), 142-148. Korkut, D. S., Dilik, T., Erdinler, E. S., Koc, K. H., and Kurtoglu, A. (2010). User Preferences and
Problems Encountered in the Selection of Housing Windows in Turkey. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(22), 3522-3528.
Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., and Granja, A. D. (2011). The Concept of Desired Value as a Stimulus for Change in Social Housing in Brazil. Habitat International, 35, 435-446.
Kujala, S., and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2009). Value of Information Systems and Products: Understanding the Users' Perspective and Values. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 9(4), 4.
Lagerkvist, C. J., Ngigi, M., Okello, J. J., and Karanja, N. (2012). Means-End Chain Approach to Understanding Farmers' Motivations for Pesticide Use in Leafy Vegetables: The Case of Kale in Peri-Urban Nairobi, Kenya. Crop protection, 39, 72-80.
Lang, R. E., and Nelson, A. C. (2007). Boomburb Politics and the Rise of Private Government. Housing Policy Debate, 18(3), 627-634.
Lavy, S., and Dixit, M. (2010). Facility Managers’ Preferred Interior Wall Finishes in Acute-Care Hospital Buildings. Paper presented at the CIB, 18th CIB World Building Congress: Facilities management and maintenance. , Salford, United Kingdom.
Leavy, B. (2010). Design Thinking-a New Mental Model of Value Innovation. Strategy & leadership, 38(3), 5-14.
Lee, J.-H., and Li, T.-C. (2011). Supporting User Participation Design Using a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 24(5), 850-865.
Lee, S. F., Lo, K. K., Leung, R. F., and Ko, A. S. O. (2000). Strategy Formulation Framework for Vocational Education: Integrating Swot Analysis, Balanced Scorecard, QFD Methodology and Mbnqa Education Criteria. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(8), 407-423.
Li, M., Jin, L., and Wang, J. (2014). A New MCDM Method Combining QFD with Topsis for Knowledge Management System Selection from the User's Perspective in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment. Applied soft computing, 21, 28-37.
Liao, C.-N., and Kao, H.-P. (2014). An Evaluation Approach to Logistics Service Using Fuzzy Theory, Quality Function Development and Goal Programming. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 68, 54-64.
Luck, R. (2012). Kinds of Seeing and Spatial Reasoning: Examining User Participation at anArchitectural Design Event. Design Studies, 33(6), 557-588. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.002
Lundgren, B. A., and Lic, T. (2010). Customers’ Perspectives on a Residential Development Using the Laddering Method. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(1), 37-52.
Moghimi, V., and Jusan, M. B. M. (2015). Priority of Structural Housing Attribute Preferences: Identifying Customer Perception. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 8(1), 36-52.
Moghimi, V., Jusan, M. B. M., and Izadpanahi, P. (2016). Iranian Household Values and Perception with Respect to Housing Attributes. Habitat International, 56, 74-83.
Moore, G. T. (1979). Environment-Behavior Studies. Introduction to Architecture, McGraw-Hill. Mourshed, M., and Zhao, Y. (2012). Healthcare Providers' Perception of Design Factors Related to
Physical Environments in Hospitals. Journal of environmental psychology, 32(4), 362-370.
Pellegrini, R. J., Schauss, A. G., and Miller, M. E. (1981). Room Color and Aggression in a Criminal Detention Holding Cell: A Test of the “Tranquilizing Pink” Hypothesis. Journal of Othomolecular Psychiatry, 10, 174-181.
Reynolds, T. J., and Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering Theory, Method, Analysis, and Interpretation. Journal of advertising research, 28(1), 11-31.
Rice, J., Kozak, R. A., Meitner, M. J., and Cohen, D. H. (2007). Appearance Wood Products and Psychological Well-Being. Wood and fiber science, 38(4), 644-659.
Rybczynski, W., and von Staa, B. (1996). Casa: Pequena História De Uma Idéia: Record.Saleh, A., Rafi, A., Woods, P., Senan, Z., and Marei, K. (2011). An Investigation of User Participation in
the Architectural Design Process in Palestine. Paper presented at the Research and Development (SCOReD), 2011 IEEE Student Conference on.
Saleh, A. M. A.-H. A. (2006). Participatory Design, Theory and Techniques (Evaluation of Al-Maageen Housing in Nablus). (Master Thesis), An-Najah National University, Palestine.
Schauerte, T. (2013). Identifying Product Attributes for Quality Function Deployment: Consumer Perceptions in the Case of Wooden Multi-Storey Houses. Pro Ligno, 9(4), 773-779.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values? Journal of social issues, 50(4), 19-45.
Shabani, M. M., Tahir, M. M., Shabankareh, H., Arjmandi, H., and Mazaheri, F. (2011). Relation of Cultural and Social Attributes in Dwelling, Responding to Privacy in Iranian Traditional House. e-BANGI, 6(2), 15.
Shamsul, B. M. T., Sia, C. C., Ng, Y. G., and Karmegan, K. (2013). Effects of Light’s Colour Temperatures on Visual Comfort Level, Task Performances, and Alertness among Students. American Journal of Public Health Research, 1(7), 159-165.
Shojai, A., and Mori, S. (2012). Rethinking Iranian Urban Housing—a Review on the Housing Attributes under the Current Development of Tehran. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 6(7), 884.
Sime, J. D. (1986). Creating Places or Designing Spaces? Journal of environmental psychology, 6(1), 49-63. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(86)80034-2
Siu, K. W. M. (2003). Users' Creative Responses and Designers' Roles. Design Issues, 19(2), 64-73.Sommer, R. (1969). Personal Space. The Behavioral Basis of Design.Stamps, A. E. (2008). On Shape and Spaciousness. Environment and Behavior.Ter Hofstede, F., Audenaert, A., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., and Wedel, M. (1998). An Investigation into the
Association Pattern Technique as a Quantitative Approach to Measuring Means-End Chains. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(1), 37-50.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., and Zelson, M. (1991). Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments. Journal of environmental psychology, 11(3), 201-230.
Valette-Florence, P., and Rapacchi, B. (1991). Improvements in Means-End Chain Analysis. Journal of advertising research, 31(1), 30-45.
Van de Poel, I. (2013). Translating Values into Design Requirements Philosophy and Engineering:Reflections on Practice, Principles and Process (pp. 253-266): Springer.
Van den Hoven, J. (2007). Ict and Value Sensitive Design The Information Society: Innovation, Legitimacy, Ethics and Democracy in Honor of Professor Jacques Berleur Sj (pp. 67-72): Springer.
Voss, R., Gruber, T., and Szmigin, I. (2007). Service Quality in Higher Education: The Role of Student Expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 949-959.
Wilson, C. (2014). Chapter 5 - Focus Groups Interview Techniques for UX Practitioners (pp. 83-111).Boston: Morgan Kaufmann.