developing a knowledge-based evaluation tool to support ... · developing a knowledge-based...

2016

DEVELOPING A KNOWLEDGE-BASED EVALUATION TOOL TO SUPPORT USER SELECTION OF INTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS

This research develops a knowledge-based evaluation tool for the selection of interior finish materials used for floors, walls and ceilings. The tool focuses on educating users on various finish materials and assisting them with their selection process.

Written By: Boris Isakov

Supervised by:

Prof. Tamer El-Diraby

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree

of Masters of Applied Science

Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto

© Copyright by Boris Isakov 2016

ii

Developing a Knowledge-Based Evaluation Tool to

Support User Selection of Interior Finish Materials

Boris Isakov

Master of Applied Science

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Toronto

<<2016>>

Abstract

Choosing the appropriate material that satisfies facility end-users and project requirements has

become a difficult task. Due to their lack of knowledge on building materials and ineffective

communication methods, end-users are often not involved in facility designs. This research aims

to formalize a knowledge-based evaluation tool for interior finish materials used for floors, walls

and ceilings which can be easily accessible by users. The evaluation tool adapts techniques of

Quality Function Deployment while combining the multi-criteria decision analysis method,

TOPSIS, to calculate the score of interior finish materials specific to each user. In addition, the

evaluation tool becomes a database for users to gather information on common interior finish

materials. Users will be able to evaluate finish materials and make their selection on which

material they most prefer. The tool acts as a template for end-user education while becoming an

effective communication method that can adhere to project requirements.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my family and friends who have supported me throughout this process. I

am privileged to have such a strong supporting cast around me every step of the way. Their

valuable insight and confidence impacted both my academic and personal life.

I could not have done this without Professor Tamer El-Diraby, who has not only been my

supervisor during my time, but also my friend. He has always found a way to keep me motivated

and push me to do more and excel in my work. His wise words and understanding of things to

come have been very beneficial to my work.

Finally I would like express my gratitude to everyone I had the pleasure to work with. This

includes my colleagues here at the i2c lab, the entire civil engineering department and everyone

who has contributed their expertise and advice to me.

iv

Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Rationale ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 The Material Evaluation Tool ............................................................................................... 3

1.3 Goal and Objectives .............................................................................................................. 5

2.0 Literature Review...................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Preliminary Research on User Engagement ......................................................................... 6

2.2 User Engagement in the Construction Industry .................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Studying User Engagement............................................................................................ 8

2.2.2 Post Occupancy Evaluation ......................................................................................... 10

2.2.3 Quality Function Deployment in Construction ............................................................ 12

2.3 Material Knowledge Resources for Users .......................................................................... 15

2.3.1 Material Studies ........................................................................................................... 15

2.3.2 Material Reports........................................................................................................... 16

2.4 Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................................. 17

3.0 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 19

3.1 Research Justification ......................................................................................................... 19

3.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................... 21

3.2.1 Setting and Accessibility.............................................................................................. 22

3.2.2 Database Size ............................................................................................................... 22

3.2.3 Research Sector ............................................................................................................ 22

3.2.4 Target Users ................................................................................................................. 23

3.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................................... 24

3.3.1 Environmental Impact .................................................................................................. 25

3.3.2 Life Cycle Cost ............................................................................................................ 27

3.3.3 Time ............................................................................................................................. 28

v

3.4 Data Collection from Industry Surveys .............................................................................. 29

3.4.1 Constructability ............................................................................................................ 30

3.4.2 Effect on Immediate Operation .................................................................................... 32

3.4.3 Effect on Long-Term Operation .................................................................................. 33

4.0 System Development .............................................................................................................. 36

4.1 Quality Function Deployment (QFD) ................................................................................. 36

4.1.2 House of Quality (HoQ)............................................................................................... 38

4.1.3 House of Quality for the Material Evaluation Tool ..................................................... 39

4.2 Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solutions (TOPSIS) ..................... 41

4.2.1 TOPSIS Algorithm....................................................................................................... 42

4.3 The Material Selection Evaluation Tool ............................................................................. 44

4.3.1 Process Flow and Functional Architecture .................................................................. 46

5.0 Evaluation and Validation....................................................................................................... 49

5.1. Validation Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 49

5.2 Current User Engagement on Construction Projects .......................................................... 50

5.2.1 How Users are Engaged in Projects ............................................................................. 52

5.2.2 Issues and Barriers Affecting User Involvement ......................................................... 54

5.3 Selection of Interior Finish Materials ................................................................................. 56

5.4 Feedback on the Material Evaluation Tool ......................................................................... 59

5.4.1 Additions and Removals for the Evaluation Tool........................................................ 61

5.4.2 Industry Expert Evaluation Characteristic Rankings ................................................... 62

5.5 Summary of the Validation Questionnaire Results ............................................................. 63

6.0 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 67

6.1 Contribution to Users .......................................................................................................... 67

6.2 Contribution to the Construction Industry .......................................................................... 68

6.3 Future Work ........................................................................................................................ 70

6.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 70

Appendix A- GaBi 6 Data ............................................................................................................. 72

Appendix B- RS Means Data ........................................................................................................ 75

Appendix C- Industry Survey ....................................................................................................... 76

Appendix D-Material Evaluation Tool Screenshots ..................................................................... 81

vi

Appendix E- Validation Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 86

List of Tables Table 1: Literature examples of user engagement in construction ................................................. 9

Table 2: Applying Post Occupancy Evaluation Surveys to construction projects........................ 11

Table 3: Case studies on how and where QFD was implemented in construction projects ......... 14

Table 4: Studies on interior finish materials and their relation to the evaluation characteristics . 16

Table 5: Reports on interior finish materials and their relation to the evaluation characteristics 17

Table 6: Current evaluation tools for material selection ............................................................... 18

Table 7: Interior finish materials in the evaluation tool ................................................................ 24

Table 8: Evaluation criteria and characteristics ............................................................................ 25

Table 9: Environmental impact characteristic data for each interior finish material .................... 26

Table 10: Life cycle cost characteristic data for each interior finish material .............................. 27

Table 11: Time characteristic data for each interior finish material ............................................. 28

Table 12: Participants for the collection of data from industry surveys ....................................... 30

Table 13: Constructability characteristic data for each interior finish material ............................ 31

Table 14: Effect on Immediate Operation characteristic data for each interior finish material ... 33

Table 15: Effect on Long-Term Operation characteristic data for each interior finish material .. 34

Table 16: Interviewed industry experts for validation of the tool ................................................ 50

Table 17: Importance of user engagement in construction ........................................................... 51

Table 18: Expert opinions on user engagement ............................................................................ 52

Table 19: Reasons why users are not involved in projects ........................................................... 55

Table 20: Expert opinion on level of knowledge of end-users for interior finish materials ......... 57

Table 21: Expert opinion on how end-users interior finish preference impacts projects ............. 58

Table 22: How helpful the evaluation tool is to users and the construction industry ................... 60

Table 23: Expert opinions on how the evaluation tool can be useful ........................................... 61

Table 24: Expert ranking of the importance of each evaluation characteristic ............................. 62

List of Figures Figure 1-The House of Quality (Cohen, 1995) ............................................................................. 38

Figure 2- Evaluation System House of Quality ............................................................................ 40

Figure 3- User Level of Importance Scale for Evaluation Characteristics ................................... 41

Figure 4- Illustration of Distance to Ideal and Negative Solution by Euclidean Distance ........... 43

Figure 5- Evaluation Tool HoQ with Arbitrary Importance Scores ............................................. 45

Figure 6: Decision Making Process for the Evaluation Tool ........................................................ 46

Figure 7- Functional Architecture of the Material Evaluation Tool ............................................. 47

vii

Figure 8-Global Warming Potential from GaBi 6 ........................................................................ 72

Figure 9- Embodied Energy from GaBi 6..................................................................................... 73

Figure 10-Water Consumption from GaBi 6 ................................................................................ 74

Figure 11-RS Means 2014 Cost and Time Data ........................................................................... 75

Figure 12- Survey Disclosure ....................................................................................................... 76

Figure 13- Constructability Survey ............................................................................................... 77

Figure 14- Immediate Operation Survey ...................................................................................... 78

Figure 15- Long-Term Operation Survey ..................................................................................... 79

Figure 16- Industry Survey Results .............................................................................................. 80

Figure 17- Opening Page Screenshot ............................................................................................ 81

Figure 18- User Input of Importance Screenshot .......................................................................... 82

Figure 19- Results Screenshot ...................................................................................................... 83

Figure 20- Full Data Report: Wall Finish Screenshot .................................................................. 84

Figure 21- Full Data Report- Floor Finish Screenshot ................................................................. 84

Figure 22- Full Data Report- Ceiling Finish Screenshot .............................................................. 85

Figure 23- User Feedback Screenshot .......................................................................................... 85

1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Rationale

A variety of building materials are available for use on construction projects. Building materials

have a direct impact on the environment, cost and performance of buildings (Papadopoulos &

Giama, 2007). The current construction materials management system is in need of substantial

improvements and enhancements (Ibn-Homaid, 2002), while the value of choosing the best

material for end-users is becoming more prominent. End-users are defined as those who use or

occupy the building. They are not considered experts in managing facilities, but have knowledge

and opinions about the performance of facilities in relation to their own purposes (Kaya, 2004).

The goal with building construction, is to produce a final product that is comfortable to end-users

and at a minimal cost to owners. A surplus of building products have become accessible over the

past two decades, but it is evident that developers are in the dilemma of selecting the appropriate

material to suit the needs of end-users (Wong & Li, 2008).

The construction industry is the least integrated of all industrial sectors. It is characterised by

fragmented relationships between clients, consultants and contractors. Projects are often treated

as a series of primarily separate operations and individual players have small commitments to the

long term success of buildings (Fowler, 2006). As a result, a major player that becomes

disregarded in construction projects are facility end-users. User involvement in construction

projects has become a prominent issue in the industry. It is important to understand the needs of

end-users to achieve complete satisfaction and less critical end-users (Kaya, 2004). The

involvement of users has contributed to a positive and necessary support for the design of more

valued projects. User involvement has led to designs that are more functional, more accepted and

2

better fit for all user needs (Kujala, 2003). Building design is about creating a product within the

established budget that lives up to the expectations of the end-user and owner. User involvement

in the design has a great influence on the quality and creation process of the finished product

(Christiansson et al, 2008).

However, there are barriers that resist the involvement of users into the design process.

Designers characterize users as conservative, resistant to change and innovation, and an obstacle

to their own creativity (Loup-Escande, Burkhardt, Christmann, & Richir, 2014). This often leads

to users not being involved in projects or their integration is postponed until the completion of

the project. Another barrier to user involvement is often users do not imagine what needs “could”

be met because they have no knowledge or understanding of what can be expected while their

individual needs change (Beguin, 2007). Finally, the lack of or ineffective communication

methods between end-users and project stakeholders has resulted in negative attitudes to engage

end-users in construction projects (Pemsel et al, 2010). The above barriers are seen as the major

issues that resist the involvement of end-users in construction projects.

The benefits of user involvement in construction projects can only be achieved if these barriers

are overcome. There is a need to step outside the norms of the construction industry and begin a

new trend of developing better educated and equipped users to optimize the benefits of user

involvement. This knowledge-based material evaluation tool was strategically developed to

address these issues of user engagement. The evaluation tool focuses on what is perceived as the

two most prominent issues affecting the resistance of user involvement in the construction

industry; uneducated end-users and ineffective communication methods.

3

1.2 The Material Evaluation Tool

The lack of user engagement in construction projects is an issue that has surfaced due to the lack

of an objective tool that can be used as a means of communication for users to voice their

opinions, interests and needs to project stakeholders. Without a communication tool, there is no

way to properly educate end-users in a manner that is efficient and specific to project

requirements. There is a need to develop a tool that can formally express and help quantify user

feedback on construction projects as they relate to project design. The developed material

evaluation tool works to educate users and supports them in their selection of interior finish

material used for floors, walls and ceilings. Interior finish materials are a major factor to how one

experiences a particular space. Materials used for floor, wall and ceiling finishes are often in

direct contact with users of the space. Interior finish materials have a major impact on the

atmosphere of a space as it relates to users. Although the evaluation tool focuses on interior

finish materials, it is designed as a knowledge-based decision support tool that can be

implemented into other facets of construction.

The tool focuses on assisting end-users in their selection process of interior finish materials.

Material aesthetics is a major factor to user preference. In some cases, it is the only factor

considered by users when selecting their preference of interior finish materials. The evaluation

tool is designed without an aesthetics component in an attempt to expand users’ knowledge of

interior finish materials beyond aesthetics. The evaluation tool exposes users to a variety of other

factors that can be vital in their selection process. The tool intends to educate users on the

impacts of interior finish materials across environmental, economic and operational aspects. In

addition, the tool promotes users to become ‘do-it-yourself’ experts by incorporating

constructability factors such as self-installation, ease of installation and health and safety risks.

4

While educating users on the various materials used for interior finishes, it also assists them with

their personal selection process. The tool employs concepts of Quality Function Deployment

(QFD) and the multi-criteria decision support analysis method of TOPSIS (Technique for Order

Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solutions). QFD is a systematic approach that maps out the

customer's needs into definable and measureable parameters using a series of matrices (Hauser &

Clausing, 1988). The goal is to formalize the customer’s needs and prioritize those needs to

produce a finished product. TOPSIS is a mathematical approach that compares a set of

alternatives and calculates the best alternative by mathematically examining the distances of each

alternative from the ideal and negative solutions. The evaluation tool uses QFD and TOPSIS to

analyze each individual user and advise them on their selection of interior finish material from an

educated, mathematical perspective. Users are presented with a detailed analysis report and

sufficient information to effectively select the interior finish material that best matches their

preferences.

From a construction industry perspective, the evaluation tool is effective in gathering

information to better understand potential facility end-users. Through its application, the

evaluation tool in turn profiles users. User profile information becomes specific to the factors

that affect their selection and preference of interior finish material. This information becomes

very useful to project stakeholders as it generates knowledge that can be applied to the design of

facilities. In addition, the tool profiles the various materials used for interior finishes on walls,

floors and ceilings. The evaluation tool attempts to understand the factors that influence a user’s

material selection, which can be directly related to their familiarity, perception and knowledge of

materials.

5

This research aims to bridge the gap of end-user involvement in the design of construction

projects by developing a knowledge-based evaluation tool that supports and assists users on their

selection of interior finish materials used for floors, walls and ceilings. The evaluation tool works

to effectively educate users on the environmental, economic and operational performances of

each interior finish material while profiling users and materials to gain a better understanding of

which materials are most preferred by users and why.

1.3 Goal and Objectives

The goal is to design the evaluation tool to be easily accessible by users through a web-based

application while providing users with sufficient information and data needed to assist them in

their selection of interior finish materials. The evaluation tool will be presented to various

experts within the construction industry to validate its purpose and function. Research objectives

are as outlined below:

1. To explore the idea of engaging users in the construction industry and understand their

implication on projects

2. To examine and investigate the various methods of user engagement and their application

issues

3. To establish the function and create the interior finish material evaluation tool

4. To research and gather data available on common interior finish materials and recognize

what data is unavailable through current sources

5. To survey industry experts in various aspects of the construction industry to collect data

to be implemented to the evaluation tool

6. To validate the evaluation tool by interviewing experts in the construction industry

7. To create the evaluation tool as a platform for user engagement

6

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Preliminary Research on User Engagement

In the preliminary stage, it is important to research the various ways end-users are involved in

product designs. This entails understanding user involvement form a global perspective in all

industrial sectors. The goal is gain a better understanding of the different methods of user

engagement and how they facilitated user involvement in project designs. Various industries

have utilized user engagement methods to achieve products tailored to their customers.

Engaging users to create a more valued and sufficient finished product entails the concept of

reverse marketing. Reverse marketing is simple; reverse traditional buyer-supplier roles.

Conventionally, the supplier takes the initiative to try and persuade the purchaser to buy a

product. However, in reverse marketing the buyer persuades the supplier to provide them

products that relate to their needs, and the supplier offers products catered to the needs of the

buyer (Blenkhorn, 1991). Reverse marketing, engages users, and is beneficial on a social and

business level. Technology developments, the globalization of markets, knowledgeable buyers,

and specific customer requirements have resulted in a greater competition in all markets. On the

business end, reverse marketing has found to lead to cost reductions of 5-30% while improving

product quality and performance (Biemans & Brand, 1995).

The construction industry has become one of the few industries that has not employed the

concept of reverse marketing. Reverse marketing is common in the clothing and technology

sectors. In the clothing sector, Nike allows users to customize their products online through Nike

ID. Within Nike ID, users can choose a Nike product, and adjust the color and style to their

preferences. In addition, Nike allows users to add embroidery to their products to enhance user

7

customization. In the field of technology, Dell allows users to customize a computer for their

needs. Users select a Dell model and can choose which processor they want, how much memory

or hard drive space they need and so forth. The concept of reverse marketing has also been

employed in the aviation industry by Airbus. Since 2010, Airbus has embarked on a two year

global consultation with more than 1.75 million people through air shows, events and most

importantly online initiatives to receive feedback on what users envision as the future of the

design and layout of passenger airplanes (Airbus, 2014). With this feedback Airbus hopes to

design products that are better suited from their customers.

Unlike other industries, the construction industry has not focused on the benefits of user

engagement. Often projects are designed, developed and completed with no consultation from

potential end-users. Feedback from end-users is either disregarded or marginally accepted and

applied to the project. Currently, the construction industry has begun to employ Building

Information Modelling (BIM). BIM is a major help to engage communities in the construction

process as it works to create an accurate virtual model of a building that can be used for

planning, design, construction and operation. It allows architects, engineers, designers,

constructors and other stakeholders to visualize and understand all building features and identify

any design, construction or operational issues. BIM encourages the integration of all stakeholders

on a project (Azhar, 2011). BIM can be utilized as a platform for user engagement.

However, there continues to be little done to involve and engage users into the design of

construction projects. Traditionally, developers have engaged users in construction projects

through demographic or social impact assessments. Developers conduct these studies to

understand the potential users of facilities and receive feedback. Social impact assessment can be

defined as the process of assessing the social consequences that follow a specific project

8

development. These include the social and cultural consequences to human populations of any

public or private actions that alter the way in which members of the society generally cope

(Burdge & Vanclay, 1996). However, as of recent, there has become a large push in the

construction industry to break away from the traditional user engagement approaches and

explore new ways to involve users. In 2014, the Toronto Community Housing Corporation

(TCHC) utilized public interest to develop a unique community engagement model for the

revitalization of a large social housing community in Regent Park. The user-engagement model

was used to gather information on the design of the new Regent Park, the commercial activity of

residents, residents’ service needs, and potential relocation issues (Public Interest, 2014). The

advancements in customer communication channels through the use of social webs is providing a

great opportunity and platform for user engagement. In fact, social media itself is an example of

reverse marketing. It allows organizations to be in direct communication with potential

customers (McGovern, 2013). It is evident that using the world wide web as a communication

platform is an efficient way of gathering customer feedback and engaging end-users into

construction projects.

2.2 User Engagement in the Construction Industry

The basis of literature review is to understand how end-users have been involved in construction

projects and the current methods implemented to gather user feedback on projects.

2.2.1 Studying User Engagement

Users that are involved in construction projects have a strong influence on facility management.

Kaya (2004) studied the results of user engagement from a managerial perspective. The study is

based on research conducted in 2002 on two owner-occupied purpose-built office buildings. The

study showed that when end-users are not involved in the design stage of buildings, they become

9

more reactive and critical of the building, placing a greater burden on those managing the

completed space. The solution would be to involve users in the process of shaping their

workplace environment rather than being engineered out (Kaya, 2004). Vischer (1995) discussed

the misconception of how employees do not need to participate in decision making on space

issues. Employees are not empowered and therefore take no responsibility for the outcome. A

company would derive more value from employees by encouraging them to take responsibility

for space-planning decisions. More informed, responsible employees make better use of space,

and save money by relying on themselves to solve problems (Vischer, 1995). However, in order

to involve users it is important to establish effective and strong communication methods. An

article by Pemsel et al (2010) focuses on the relation between end-users and facility planners.

The paper identifies areas of difficulty in managing the participation of end-users in the course of

the design and delivery of construction projects, as well as suggesting possible solutions. The

study showed evidence of ineffective communication that resulted in negative attitudes amongst

project stakeholders. The result of the study is that engaging end-users requires specific guidance

and proper communication channels. Social media has been proposed as an effective means to

solve this issue of poor guidance and communication (Pemsel et al, 2010). Table 1 summarizes

the various works studying user engagement in construction.

Table 1: Literature examples of user engagement in construction

Source Focus Results Recommendation

Kaya (2004)

User engagement from a

Managerial Perspective on

research conducted in 2002

on two owner-occupied

purpose-built office

buildings

When end-users are not

Involved in the design stage

of buildings, they become

more reactive and critical of

the building, placing a greater

burden on building managers

Involve users in the

process of shaping their

workplace environment

rather than being

engineered out

10

Vischer

(1995)

Misconception of how

employees do not need to

participate in decision

making on space issues

A company would derive

more Value from office

accommodation by involving

employees by encouraging

them to take responsibility for

space-planning decisions

More informed employees

make better use of space,

and save money by relying

on themselves to solve

problems

Pemsel et al

(2010)

Managing the participation

of end-users in the course of

the Design and delivery of

construction projects

Engaging end-users requires

specific guidance and proper

communication channels.

Social media has been

proposed as an effective

means to solve this issue

of poor communication

2.2.2 Post Occupancy Evaluation

A commonly used method in engaging end-users within construction projects is utilizing a post-

occupancy evaluation survey. Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is a tool to assess the quality

and performance of facilities during their operation. POE incorporates users of facilities through

surveys to receive user feedback on various building operations. The role of POE is better served

as a facility management programme rather than a simple addition to facility design (Preiser,

1995). Often, the knowledge achieved from POE is applied to future construction projects.

Lackney and Zajfen (2005) discussed the effectiveness of POE studies on three public libraries

located across the United States. The study concluded that POE can be used as an evaluation tool

to determine how well a project has met its intended goals as well as a feasibility analysis that

may lead to formal architectural programming, planning and designing (Lackney & Zajfen,

2005). The article by Preiser (1995) discusses the feasibility of introducing the concept of POE

to future designs. The issues and recommendations identified in the survey by current users, were

implemented in the planning and design of the new medical office building for the University of

Cincinnati Hospital (Preiser, 1995). Users are engaged in POE surveys for various aspects of

11

building performance. The input from users through POE surveys is compiled into a knowledge-

base which would be used to assist designers in the decision making of future projects (Preiser,

1995). Zhang and Barrett (2010) expressed the gap between design expectation and the

performance achieved. The article evaluates feedback received from POE surveys on five

primary schools in the UK. The results showed that occupants were simply coping with the given

environment rather than managing it due to their lack of involvement in its original design. In

conclusion, POE are strongly related to building performance in-use. It was suggested that

stronger and more regular POEs can improve the practical use of existing buildings and the

design of new buildings or improvements (Zhang & Barrett, 2010). Table 2 summarizes the

according literature on Post Occupancy Evaluation Surveys.

Table 2: Applying Post Occupancy Evaluation Surveys to construction projects

Source Implementation Results Reason for Study

Lackney and

Zajfen (2005)

POE studies on three

public libraries located

across the United

States

Evaluation tool to determine how

well a project has met its intended

Goals but also as a feasibility

analysis

Evaluate user comfort

and accessibility

Preiser (1995)

POE for future design

of new medical office

building at the

University of

Cincinnati

Issues and recommendations

identified in the survey by current

users, were implemented in the

planning and design of the New

medical office building

Gain knowledge for New

construction

Zhang and

Barrett (2010)

POE surveys on five

primary schools in the

United Kingdom

Occupants were simply coping

with the given environment due

to their lack of Involvement in its

original design

Improve the practical use

of existing buildings and

for New building design

12

2.2.3 Quality Function Deployment in Construction

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) helps translates the buyers and users’ needs into

information that can be managed by the design team and implemented into construction projects.

The prioritised consumer requirements are used as a guide to focus on what the consumer wants

and directly implement their feedback into the design process (Abdul-Rahman et al, 1999). QFD

has been proven to be successful in identifying customers and their needs, determining technical

characteristics and enhancing communication with customers. The use of QFD has been applied

in construction projects as a tool for considering the most important customer requirements from

the outset, and its innovative approach produces results that can be directly implemented to

construction designs (Delgado-Hernandez et al, 2007). QFD has been successfully applied to the

design of the following construction projects: sewage treatment, urban public car park, apartment

construction, children’s nursery, low-cost housing, high rise buildings, and bridges. It has been

successfully implemented, and benefited various construction projects in places such as, Hong

Kong, China, Brazil, United Kingdom, Malaysia, Turkey and Canada. In general QFD has been

implemented either during the design and planning stage or after it. Table 3 displays a summary

of the case studies where QFD was implemented in construction projects in addition to their

focus and which cases discussed building materials.

2.2.3.1 Implementation during the Design and Planning Stage

Ahmed et al (2003) explored the applicability of QFD by developing a QFD model with an

application template for the process of upgrading an existing sewage treatment works in a new

town in Hong Kong. The findings suggest that QFD can be successfully used in the capital

project planning process as a road map to keep track of the original requirements, facilitate good

communication across the design team, and serve as a tool for evaluating project alternatives

13

(Ahmed et al, 2003). Zhang et al (2007) built a QFD-based decision making model for new

product design of a car park location for China considering users, investors and local authority

requirements. The utilization of QFD proved to be a theoretical and practical method for decision

makers who are supposed to make a decisions on multi-schemes (Zhang et al, 2007). Gargione

(1999) applied QFD on the design phase of a real estate construction project in Brazil as a tool

for improving the layout and features of a middleclass apartment unit. The design index before

applying QFD was 77.17% and increased to 82.74% after applying QFD (Gargione, 1999).

Delgado-Hernandez et al (2007) studied the use of QFD for the design of a new children's

nursery in the Birmingham area of the United Kingdom. QFD was successful in identifying and

satisfying the needs of nursery staff, parents and children by determining relevant technical

characteristics for their needs and enhancing communication between end customers and design

teams (Delgado-Hernandez et al, 2007). Abdul-Rahman et al (1999) applied QFD to determine

the importance and the level of customer satisfaction associated with low-cost housing flats in

Malaysia. The exercise led to the identification of the most important characteristics for

satisfying customers. This prioritisation is used as a guide to focus on what the customer wants

throughout the design process (Abdul-Rahman et al, 1999).

2.2.3.2 Implementation after the Design and Planning Stage

Dikmen et al (2005) examined the applicability of QFD as a decision-making tool after the

construction stage of a high rise building project located in Ankara, Turkey. According to this

case study, it has been observed that QFD can be utilized to determine the right marketing

strategy, to make a comparison with competing alternatives and to collect data which could

increase client satisfaction level in upcoming projects (Dikmen et al, 2005). Bolar et al (2014)

discussed implementing QFD to achieve quality and customer satisfaction in the infrastructure

14

maintenance decision process (replace or rehabilitate) for the Johnson Street Bridge in Victoria,

Canada. The results obtained from the use of QFD provided a list of important issues in order of

priority that can be used to meet consumer requirements even after the major maintenance is

accomplished (Bolar et al, 2014).

Table 3: Case studies on how and where QFD was implemented in construction projects

Source How QFD was

applied

Where QFD was

applied

Focus on design

for new

construction?

Discussion of

building

materials?

Ahmed et al

(2003)

During the design

stage

Upgrading an existing

sewage treatment

works in a new town

in Hong Kong

Zhang et al

(2007)

During the design

stage

Car park location in

China

Gargione (1999) During the design

stage

Middle class

apartment unit in

Brazil

Delgado-

Hernandez et al

(2007)

During the design

stage

Children's nursery in

the Birmingham area

of the United

Kingdom.

Abdul-Rahman

et al (1999)

During the design

stage

Low-cost housing

flats in Malaysia

Dikmen et al

(2005) After construction

to determine best

marketing strategy

High rise building

project located in

Ankara, Turkey.

Bolar et al

(2014)

Infrastructure

maintenance

decision process

Replace or rehabilitate

the Johnson Street

Bridge in Victoria,

Canada

15

2.3 Material Knowledge Resources for Users

Literature sources were measured on their ability to provide users with necessary information

and/or data on interior finish materials used for floors, walls and ceilings. A plethora of

literatures sources were examined to understand what material information is commonly and

currently available for users. Literature sources that encompassed material data information were

either in the form of a study reflecting the difference between materials or supplier reports

intended for consumer education. It is important to note that literature sources were evaluated

based on their ability to provide users information on the various interior finish materials that are

encompassed within the evaluation tool. The goal was to understand how various material

information sources reference the 19 evaluation characteristics implemented in the evaluation

tool. However cost characteristics (material, labour, maintenance, demolition) were not

examined. The 15 evaluation characteristics examined are as follows: greenhouse gas emission,

embodied energy, water consumption, time to install, time to remove, material life span, ability

to be self-installed, ease of installation, health and safety risks, thermal performance, fire

performance, sound performance, impact of moisture, freedom from maintenance and durability.

2.3.1 Material Studies

There are various material studies that have focused on the performance of building materials,

from commonly, an environmental perspective. Table 4 displays the comparison of which

evaluation characteristics implemented in the developed selection tool are referenced within each

material study.

16

Table 4: Studies on interior finish materials and their relation to the evaluation characteristics

Study

Gre

enh

ou

se

Gas

Em

issi

on

Em

bo

die

d

En

erg

y

Wat

er

Co

nsu

mpti

on

Lif

e S

pan

Sel

f-

Inst

alla

tion

Eas

e o

f

Inst

alla

tion

Hea

lth

an

d

Saf

ety

Th

erm

al

Per

form

ance

Fir

e

Per

form

ance

So

un

d

Per

form

ance

Imp

acts

of

Mo

istu

re

Fre

edo

m o

f

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Du

rab

ilit

y

Aktas & Bilec (2012)

Chau et al (2012)

Fay et al (2000)

Gonzalez & Navarro

(2006)

Jonsson et al (1997)

Keoleian (2000)

Nicoletti et al (2002)

Paulsen & Sposto

(2013)

Peterson & Solberg

(2004)

Potting & Blok (1995)

Saadah & AbuHijleh

(2012)

Treloar et al (2001)

Yan et al (2010)

Yoahnis (2002)

2.3.2 Material Reports

Interior finish material reports were achieved from material suppliers, individual researchers or

corporate authors. Table 5 displays the comparison of which evaluation characteristics are

referenced within each material report.

17

Table 5: Reports on interior finish materials and their relation to the evaluation characteristics

Report

Gre

enh

ou

se G

as

Em

issi

on

Em

bo

die

d

En

erg

y

Eff

ect

on

En

vir

on

men

t

Wat

er

Co

nsu

mpti

on

Lif

e S

pan

Sel

f-In

stal

lati

on

Eas

e o

f

Inst

alla

tion

Hea

lth

an

d

Saf

ety

Th

erm

al

Per

form

ance

Fir

e

Per

form

ance

So

un

d

Per

form

ance

Imp

acts

of

Mo

istu

re

Fre

edo

m o

f

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Du

rab

ilit

y

Armstrong (2012)

BEES (2005)

Bergman et al (2003)

Cannon Design (2013)

Clarke (2013)

EuroGypsum (2010)

European Aluminium

Association (2009)

Glueck (2009)

Level (2013)

McDermott (2014)

National Association of

Home Builders (2007)

Nebel (2006)

Nordby (2009)

NRMCA (2012)

Porter’s Paints (2009)

Rodriguez (2014)

Scheuer et al (2003)

Solo-Gabriele et al

(2004)

Vinyl Institute (2005)

2.4 Evaluation Tools

Mahmoud et al (1996) discussed the creation of an expert system for the evaluation and selection

of floor finishing materials in the Saudi market. The system emphasizes the potential of

computer aided building design tools to help architects and decision makers with their material

18

selection on a rational basis and assist in their documentation (Mahmoud, Aref, & Al-Hammad,

1996). Rahman et al (2012) developed a decision support system for the selection of sub

elements in roof material design in Northern Ireland. Knowledge of roof materials was gathered

from domain experts and literature review. The proposed system employs a multiple criteria

decision making method to solve the selection of roof materials for building designers (Rahman,

Odeyinka, Perera, & Bi, 2012). Prasad and Cakraborty (2013) used a QFD-based approach that

worked to guide designers in selecting the most appropriate materials for varying industrial

applications. Most of the previously applied methodologies for material selection have either

adopted criteria weights estimated using subjective judgement of designers or failed to account

for the voice of the customers to meet requirements (Prasad & Chakraborty, 2013). Surveying

users, yields the customer requirements to be used in the QFD system. The various evaluation

tools used for material selection can be seen in Table 6.

Table 6: Current evaluation tools for material selection

Source Material Selection Intended System User Technique Used

Mahmoud et al

(1996)

Interior floor finish in

Saudi Market

Architects and decision

makers

Heuristics and

algorithms

Rahman et al

(2012)

Roofing sub elements in

Northern Ireland

Building designers Technique for Order

Preference by

Similarity to Ideal

Solution (TOPSIS)

Prasad and

Cakraborty

(2013)

Sailing boat mast, flywheel,

high temperature oxygen-

rich environment and load

wagon walls

Designers Developing QFD

House of Quality

19

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Research Justification

Engaging end-users into construction projects has become an involving theme in the construction

industry. It has been proven that there are benefits to engaging end-users and using their

feedback to create a better functioning facility. Involving end-users into the decision making

process gives users more ownership to projects and ultimately creates more responsible users.

However, to effectively engage and involve end-users, an effective communication method must

be established. Strong communication methods are vital to user education in a goal to create

more user valued finished products. Post Occupancy Evaluations are the most common way to

gather feedback from facility end-users. However, POEs are not sufficient in communicating

with end-users and often focus on gathering user feedback related to in-use building performance

or for facility management. In addition POEs are frequently used to gather user feedback on a

current facility only to apply that knowledge to new projects. Consequently, this method is not

feasible and does not produce feedback that can be applied in the design or construction stage.

Quality Function Deployment is an effective tool utilized heavily in the manufacturing industry

to engage customers into the design of new products. Although QFD is heavily applied in the

manufacturing industry, it has been implemented to some construction projects and proven to be

a reliable and effective means of communicating with end-users and improving building designs.

QFD produces useful and quantifiable feedback that can be immediately applied to a

construction project. Its vast array of knowledge generation has been beneficial to a wide variety

of projects around the world. In addition, projects that have utilized QFD have made aware the

importance of building material selection as it relates to end-users. Specifically, three case

20

studies, Gargione (1999), Abdul-Rahman et al (1999) and Delgado-Hernandez et al (2007)

examined building materials while implementing QFD to facility design. Gargione (1999)

showed that building materials such as floor finishes had an importance rating of 3/5 amongst

users, and cleaning/maintenance of building materials also had an importance score of 3/5

(Gargione, 1999). Delgado-Hernandez et al (2007) examined material finishes for floors, walls

and ceilings as a means of satisfying customers’ requirements for room temperature and

acoustics. Materials used for these finishes gained priority and became the most relevant

technical characteristic for the project (Delgado-Hernandez et al, 2007). More notably, Abdul-

Rahman et al (1999) surveyed flat dwellers to achieve first-hand information from flat dwellers

regarding the current standard and condition of low-cost flats. The results showed that building

materials used for “building, roof, floor, wall, door, window, etc.” had a very high level of

importance of 4.40/5 ranking 2nd of 13 factors that influence the quality of low-cost flats

(Abdul-Rahman et al, 1999). Gargione (1999), Abdul-Rahman et al (1999) and Delgado-

Hernandez et al (2007) applied QFD with a focus to improving the entire facility design,

however within their works, it became evident that users placed a high level of importance to the

selection of building materials. The implementation of QFD in construction projects revealed the

importance of building material selection to facility end-users, the major concept to this research.

There are numerous studies available to users on the impact and selection of interior finish

materials in construction projects. However, the primary focus for most of the studies is to

examine the environmental impacts of materials. There have been little to no studies that

examined building materials on a performance measure scale. Interior finish material information

and data can be found in various reports available to users. However, it is difficult for users to

obtain all the necessary information needed to make an educated choice of material selection

21

when the data is scattered among such a wide range of literature. In addition, some material

information is not presented to users as they would need to contact suppliers or industry

professionals to obtain this information. There is a vital need to develop a database for

information and data as it relates to interior finish materials that can be easily accessible by all

users.

The works by Mahmoud et al (1996), Rahman et al (2009) and Prasad and Cakraborty (2013)

focused on developing various decision support tools. Specifically, the work by Mahmoud et al,

proved the effectiveness of developing a decision support tool to assist in building material

selections. However, the proposed evaluation tools have been designed and catered to assist

project decision makers. There continues to be a need to design decision support tools that can

educate users while being easily accessible to all users.

This research intends to fill the gap within the construction industry and formulate an evaluation

tool that will focus on educating users on various materials available for interior finishes of

floors, walls and ceilings. The evaluation tool will assist users on their selection of interior finish

materials by incorporating the main concepts of QFD in addition with a multi-criteria decision

analysis method (TOPSIS). The evaluation tool will focus on educating users and providing them

with all subsequent data to aid in their selection process. In addition, the tool provides the

opportunity to gather input and feedback from users and hopefully utilize this information to

create a more user driven and valued design.

3.2 Scope

The material evaluation tool was designed particularly to educate and assist its users in their

selection of interior finish materials used for floors, walls and ceilings. The evaluation tool acts

22

as a database for users to achieve information and data on various materials used in interior

finishes. In addition, the evaluation tool becomes a benchmark exercise as a way to gather

information and feedback from potential facility end-users on their preference of interior finish

materials. The evaluation tool was designed specific to the scope of its work and is outlined

below.

3.2.1 Setting and Accessibility

The evaluation tool gathers knowledge from North American databases and experts in the field

of construction within Ontario, Canada. As a result it is best intended for use in North America,

specifically in Ontario, Canada. Although it can be accessed globally, it is best suited within the

proposed setting. The evaluation tool is set up as a web-based application easily accessible by

any internet users. The tool is hosted off a server and can be accessed through any internet

provider.

3.2.2 Database Size

The evaluation tool focuses on interior finish material utilized for floors, wall and ceilings. As

such it incorporates a few material choices within each category. Although there are many

different materials for each purpose, the evaluation tool concentrates on commonly used interior

finish materials. The materials were chosen from consulting members of academia, industry

professionals and research material. In addition materials were evaluated based on 19 different

characteristics outlined in Table 8.

3.2.3 Research Sector

The primary focus for the evaluation tool will be on assisting and gathering information from

users on residential facilities. Building size is ideally mid-rise facilities. The reason for this is to

23

be able to effectively gather data from users that can be easily quantified. It is assumed that the

facilities are comprised of reinforced concrete; therefore the floor and ceiling slabs consist of

exposed concrete as the base material. Although the tool can be implemented to any type of

construction project, it is best suited for residential facilities because of the materials

incorporated in the tool. Occupants tend to spend more time and place a larger value on their

residential facility. As a result, users become more inclined to use the tool as it can benefit their

daily lives and individual needs.

3.2.4 Target Users

The target users for the application are the internal and external customers as defined by the

construction industry. Internal customers are the people working within the organisation that

produce the product or service (Abdul-Rahman et al, 1999). Internal customers include any

member within a construction project that is involved in the decision making for a project. This

entails, owners, designers, contractors, suppliers and other stakeholders. These stakeholders

work to develop an efficient and practical design. Project decision makers can utilize the

evaluation tool to gather valuable feedback in real time from potential facility end-users. The

evaluation tool will allow them to gather user feedback and opinion on their preference of

interior finish materials for floors, walls and ceilings. This allows them to gain a better

understanding of potential facility end-users and produce a more user driven design.

External customers are the people who actually buy the products or services, such as facility end-

users and/or occupants. These external customers have a final say whether a product has fulfilled

their needs or requirements. Feedback from these customers is important in determining the

customer attributes to be incorporated into the facility design (Abdul-Rahman et al, 1999).

External customers can utilize the evaluation tool as a means to receive knowledge, advice or

24

guidance for their selection of which interior finish material they would most prefer. Users of the

tool become educated on the various finish materials available and can use this knowledge for

their own personal agendas.

3.3 Data Collection

The focus of the research will be on interior finish materials used for walls, floors and ceilings.

The adjacent sections detail how data was collected for each finish material. Data was collected

from software, literature sources and surveying industry professionals. Outlined in Table 7 are

the various interior finish materials incorporated into the evaluation tool. It is recognized that

there are a variety of materials available, however these materials were selected because of their

high probability of use in construction projects. In addition these materials were most commonly

found in many literature sources and software.

Table 7: Interior finish materials in the evaluation tool

Wall Finish Floor Finish Ceiling Finish

Paint (Latex) Linoleum Drywall with Paint

Wallpaper Vinyl Tile Acoustic Ceiling (Fibreglass)

Brick Veneer Nylon Carpet Aluminum Ceiling

Vinyl Panel Wool Carpet Exposed Concrete

Ceramic Tile Cork

Wood Veneer Hardwood

Ceramic Tile

Exposed Concrete

Stone (Granite)

Each finish material was assessed over six major criteria. Each criteria is based on three to four

specific evaluation characteristics. The evaluated characteristics were chosen by speaking with

experts within the construction industry. Table 8 below outlines the criteria and evaluation

25

characteristic each material is assessed on. Data on each interior finish material for each

evaluation characteristic was implemented to the evaluation tool. The evaluation characteristics

are vital in generating material scores for each individual user.

Table 8: Evaluation criteria and characteristics

Criteria Evaluation Characteristic

Environmental Impact

Global Warming Potential

Embodied Energy

Water Consumption

Life Cycle Cost

Material Cost

Labour Cost

Maintenance Cost

Demolition Cost

Time

Installation Time

Removal Time

Life Span

Constructability

Self-Installation

Ease of Installation

Health and Safety Risks

Effect on Immediate Operation

Thermal Insulation

Fire Performance

Sound Performance

Effect on Long-Term Operation

Moisture Impact

Freedom from Maintenance

Durability

3.3.1 Environmental Impact

Environmental impact is composed of the following characteristics: global warming potential,

energy use and water consumption. Interior finish material data was gathered for each

environmental characteristic. Data was obtained through the use of GaBi 6 software and a

collection of literature sources. GaBi 6 is a life cycle assessment program that models every

element of a product from a life cycle perspective. GaBi 6 software presents data with regards to

26

each environmental characteristic. The GaBi 6 database consists of 4700 Lifecycle Inventory

Datasets. Of the 24 selected building materials, only 5 materials were not present in the GaBi 6

database. For the materials not present in GaBi 6, the data was obtained by taking the average

values from literature sources. Table 9 outlines the environmental data for the finish materials

used in the evaluation tool. A complete overview of the data achieved from GaBi 6 can be found

in Appendix A.

Table 9: Environmental impact characteristic data for each interior finish material

Finish Material


Global Warming

Potential (kg CO2-e/kg)

Embodied

Energy (MJ/kg)

Water

Consumption

(Kg-w/kg)

Wal

ls

Paint (Latex) 0.01 0.02 0.01

Wallpaper 0.85 13.95 3.03

Brick Veneer 0.21 2.16 0.05

Vinyl Panel 3.18 54.52 3.51

Ceramic Tile* 1.40 20.50 0.67

Wood Veneer 0.40 7.78 0.93

Flo

ors

Linoleum 1.99 22.04 0.78

Vinyl Tile 1.38 21.20 0.63

Nylon Carpet 3.63 51.88 1.07

Wool Carpet 4.94 62.21 1.96

Cork 1.65 30.55 1.36

Hardwood* 0.60 0.46 0.00

Ceramic Tile* 1.40 20.50 0.67

Exposed Concrete 0.00 0.00 0.00

Stone (Granite) 0.23 3.47 0.44

Cei

lin

g

Drywall + Paint 2.14 28.82 0.19

Acoustic Ceiling

(Fibreglass)* 1.50 24.50 0.33

Aluminum Ceiling* 8.57 194.00 9.50

Exposed Concrete 0.00 0.00 0.00 * Data was obtained through literature sources

It is important to note the environmental values for exposed concrete. One major assumption is

that the proposed facilities where the evaluation tool is implemented are primarily composed of

27

reinforced concrete. This means, that the floor and ceiling slabs are already made of concrete. As

a result, exposed concrete becomes the base material in the space. It is assumed that there are no

environmental effects if users select to keep their finish material as the base material of exposed

concrete.

3.3.2 Life Cycle Cost

Each material is evaluated on its: material cost, labour cost, maintenance cost, and demolition

cost. The various costs for each material were obtained using RS-Means 2014. RS-Means is a

division of Reed Business Information that provides cost information to the construction industry

to provide accurate estimates for project costs. It is important to note that all material cost data is

in units of dollars per square foot ($/sf). There are no added cost values for exposed concrete as

it is already the base material. It is assumed that the facility is already composed of concrete.

Table 10 represents the costs for each material. All data received from RS-Means 2014 can be

found in Appendix B.

Table 10: Life cycle cost characteristic data for each interior finish material

Finish Material

Life Cycle Cost

Material

($/sf)

Labour

($/sf)

Maintenance

($/sf)

Demolition

($/sf)

Wal

ls

Paint (Latex) 0.13 0.40 0.00 0.53

Wallpaper 0.98 0.60 0.05 0.66

Brick Veneer 8.75 6.55 1.29 3.23

Vinyl Panel 4.10 1.34 0.22 2.26

Ceramic Tile 2.26 3.17 0.57 0.98

Wood Veneer 2.41 3.18 1.61 2.26

Flo

ors

Linoleum 3.59 0.93 0.22 0.42

Vinyl Tile 0.86 0.67 0.22 0.59

Nylon Carpet 6.22 0.50 0.22 0.29

Wool Carpet 14.56 0.50 0.22 0.29

Cork 7.00 1.07 0.00 0.42

28

Hardwood 3.62 2.43 1.61 1.13

Ceramic Tile 4.45 2.01 0.57 0.87

Exposed Concrete 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Stone (Granite) 26.50 11.70 0.57 0.94

Cei

lin

g

Drywall + Paint 1.25 2.77 0.26 0.51

Acoustic Ceiling (Fibreglass) 2.37 0.97 0.13 0.81

Aluminum Ceiling 3.04 4.89 0.13 0.81

Exposed Concrete 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3.3 Time

The ‘time’ characteristics for each material are: time to install, time to remove and material life

span. Life span data was the only data not achieved through RS-Means 2014. Installation and

removal times are in units of hour per square foot (hr/sf), which is translated in to; how many

hours it takes to install/remove each square foot of the material. A materials’ life span is how

many years (yr.) the material lasts. Life span varies amongst literature sources. As a result the

life span of each material was obtained through taking the average life span value from literature

sources. Exposed concrete has no value of installation time or removal time. It is assumed that

the facility is already composed of concrete. As a result there is no added time of installation or

removal for exposed concrete as it is the base material for the facility. Table 11 outlines the time

data for each material. All data received from RS-Means 2014 can be found in Appendix B.

Table 11: Time characteristic data for each interior finish material

Finish Material

Time

Install

(hr/sf)

Remove

(hr/sf)

Life Span

(yr.)

Wal

ls

Paint (Latex) 0.01 0.01 60

Wallpaper 0.02 0.02 60

Brick Veneer 0.17 0.06 100

Vinyl Panel 0.03 0.03 20

Ceramic Tile 0.08 0.03 48

Wood Veneer 0.08 0.03 62

29

Flo

ors

Linoleum 0.02 0.01 21

Vinyl Tile 0.02 0.02 19

Nylon Carpet 0.01 0.08 11

Wool Carpet 0.01 0.08 10

Cork 0.03 0.01 25

Hardwood 0.03 0.25 46

Ceramic Tile 0.05 0.02 48

Exposed Concrete 0.00 0.00 100

Stone (Granite) 0.25 0.03 75

Cei

lin

g Drywall + Paint 0.06 0.01 60

Acoustic Ceiling (Fibreglass) 0.02 0.22 24

Aluminum Ceiling 0.11 0.22 26

Exposed Concrete 0.00 0.00 100

3.4 Data Collection from Industry Surveys

The data for constructability, effect on immediate operation and effect on long-term operation

could not be appropriately achieved from literature sources or software because of the specific

criteria outlined in this research. As a result, industry surveys were completed by industry

experts to achieve the necessary data. The surveys helped quantify the tangibles outlined in the

characteristics for constructability, immediate operation and long-term operation. A total of 10

surveys were completed by a variety of material experts from the construction industry within

Ontario, Canada. A range of experts from academia professors, architects, superintendents,

engineers, managers, contractors, and owners were surveyed. Table 12 outlines the participants

that completed the industry survey. Within the survey, experts were asked to score each interior

finish material on subsequent scales for their performance in the evaluation characteristic of

constructability, immediate operation and long-term operation. Appendix C outlines the survey

used to gather interior finish data from industry experts and the achieved scores.

30

Table 12: Participants for the collection of data from industry surveys

Employer Position

Turner Fleischer Architects Senior Associate

Queen's University Assistant Professor

North Baikal Construction Site Superintendent

Bormac Engineering Managing Partner

Steelrite Manager of Engineering

Ellis Don Field Engineer

University of Toronto Post-doctorate Fellow

Lanterra Construction Ltd Site Superintendent

Archdesign Architects Principal Architect

Old Orchard Homes Developer and Builder

3.4.1 Constructability

Constructability criteria is evaluated by the materials: self-installation, ease of installation, and

health and safety risks during installation. Industry experts scored each material on their

corresponding scales for the outlined constructability characteristics. The greater the materials

score, the better they perform in each characteristic. Appendix C outlines the survey and the

collected responses. Table 13 displays the average scores for each material obtained from

responses to the industry survey.

Self-Installation: Can the material be installed by the user without professional expertise?

Ease of construction: Generally how difficult is the material to install?

31

Health and Safety Risks: How severe are the risks to users?

Table 13: Constructability characteristic data for each interior finish material

Finish Material

Constructability

Self-Installation Ease of

Installation

Health and Safety

Risks

Wal

ls

Paint (Latex) 3.90 3.80 3.10

Wallpaper 3.40 3.00 3.10


Vinyl Panel 1.50 1.60 2.40

Ceramic Tile 1.80 1.80 2.50

Wood Veneer 1.70 1.90 2.70

Flo

ors

Linoleum 2.20 2.30 2.50

Vinyl Tile 3.00 2.50 2.50

Nylon Carpet 2.40 2.70 3.40

Wool Carpet 2.30 2.70 3.40

Cork 2.00 2.00 2.50

Hardwood 1.80 1.50 2.30




Cei

ling Drywall + Paint 3.20 3.20 3.20

Acoustic Ceiling (Fibreglass) 0.80 1.20 2.60

Aluminum Ceiling 0.80 0.60 2.20


It is important to note that the constructability data for exposed concrete. It is assumed that

reinforced concrete structures are basis of this research. As a result the floor and ceiling slabs are

already composed of concrete. Constructability characteristics do not apply to the exposed

concrete material choice and as a result exposed concrete was given the highest score.

32

3.4.2 Effect on Immediate Operation

Effect on immediate operation relates to how the material impacts the interior space once

installed. The characteristics chosen for immediate operation are: thermal insulation, fire

performance and sound performance. The values for these characteristics were obtained through

the responses from industry surveys. The higher the value, the better the material performs

within each characteristic. The survey scales are seen below. Table 14 displays the average

scores for each material as obtained from industry surveys. Full survey data can be seen in

Appendix C.

Thermal Insulation: Does the material assist with thermal insulation and have an effect on

heating/cooling of the space?

Fire Performance: How does the material respond to fire?

Sound Performance: How well does the material absorb sound?

33

Table 14: Effect on Immediate Operation characteristic data for each interior finish material

Finish Material


Thermal

Insulation

Fire

Performance

Sound

Performance

Wal

ls

Paint (Latex) 0.10 1.60 0.40

Wallpaper 0.50 0.90 0.60


Vinyl Panel 2.60 2.40 3.60


Wood Veneer 3.20 2.50 4.70

Flo

ors

Linoleum 1.50 2.10 2.50

Vinyl Tile 2.00 2.50 2.70


Wool Carpet 4.00 2.10 5.40

Cork 3.60 2.40 5.70

Hardwood 3.50 2.80 4.60




Cei

ling Drywall + Paint 0.20 1.30 0.50




3.4.3 Effect on Long-Term Operation

Effect on long-term operation relates to how the material performs over a long period of time.

Long term operation is based on: moisture resistance, freedom from maintenance and durability.

The values obtained for each characteristic in this criteria were obtained from the average scores

from industry surveys. Table 15 displays the data for each material. Full survey data can be

found in Appendix C. The evaluated scale for each long-term operation characteristics is outlined

below:

34

Moisture Resistance: How does the material perform against water (spills) and humidity?

Freedom from Maintenance: What level of maintenance/cleaning is needed for the material?

Durability: How durable is the material over its life span?

Table 15: Effect on Long-Term Operation characteristic data for each interior finish material

Finish Material


Moisture

Resistance

Freedom from

Maintenance Durability

Wal

ls

Paint (Latex) 3.60 4.80 4.60

Wallpaper 2.90 5.10 4.20


Vinyl Panel 6.80 6.10 6.20


Wood Veneer 3.50 5.20 5.10

Flo

ors

Linoleum 6.00 7.30 6.20

Vinyl Tile 6.50 6.90 6.50


Wool Carpet 1.30 4.90 4.30

Cork 2.80 4.60 4.50

Hardwood 2.50 5.20 6.80




35

Cei

lin

g Drywall + Paint 2.80 5.80 6.00




36

4.0 System Development

The plan is to utilize the concepts of QFD in addition with a multi-criteria decision support

analysis method known as TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal

Solutions) to develop the material selection evaluation tool. The evaluation tool is accessible to

all users as it assists and educates them with their selection of interior finish material. Table 7

outlines the interior finish materials that have been inputted into this system. Table 8 displays the

evaluation characteristics analyzed in the evaluation tool. This evaluation tool hopes to act as a

new innovative way to educate and engage end-users into the construction industry. The tools’

simplicity works to effectively educate any user about the impacts of different interior finish

materials across a wide range of criteria and assists them in their selection process by scoring

each finish material based on their individual preferences. In addition, it creates an opportunity to

establish a vital means of communication between project decision makers and facility end-

users. This in turn, allows for the design of more user-focused facilities. Understanding trends

and factors that influence a users’ preference of interior finish materials allows for the

opportunity to produce a more valued facility design.

4.1 Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

QFD is a sufficient tool that formalizes the opinion and interests of users. It was first used in

Kobe shipyards during the 1960s by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for the design of massive super

tanker cargo ships. Each customer had specific cargo holding requirements making the design of

ships a challenging ordeal. At the request of Mitsubishi, the Japanese government contacted

universities to come up with a logistic where each step of the construction process is linked to

customer requirements (Bolar et al, 2014). As a result, this led to the development of QFD. In the

37

1970s QFD was used by Toyota for the manufacturing of their vehicles and has since been

heavily utilized in the manufacturing industry worldwide to help increase customer satisfaction

levels. QFD is defined as “a method for structured product planning and development that

enables a development team to specify clearly the customer’s wants and needs, and then to

evaluate each proposed product or service capability systematically in terms of its impact on

meeting those needs (Cohen, 1995).” In short it is a method to combine the personal interface to

manufacturing and business industries. QFD links the needs of the customer with design,

manufacturing, engineering and development. Reasons for its implementation are outlined below

(Tiranasar, 2007):

1. Understanding customer needs from the customer's perspective

2. What 'value' means to the customer, from the customer's perspective

3. Understanding how customers or end-users become interested, choose, and are satisfied

4. Analyzing the needs of the customer

5. Deciding what features to include

6. Determining what level of performance to deliver

7. Intelligently linking the needs of the customer with design, development, engineering,

manufacturing, and service functions

The application of QFD helps reduce product lead times by enabling designers to identify

customer requirements early on and avoiding rework in later stages (Hauser & Clausing, 1988).

QFD encourages communication in the construction process to ensure project and business

success. (Kamara et al, 1999). Communication in construction project management should

involve customers, shareholders, financial communities and the general public, all of which are

involved in a QFD approach from the outset. (Oakland & Marosszeky, 2006)

38

The concept of QFD involves creating a series of matrices known as quality tables. In 1988,

Clausing and Hauser developed the matrix known as the House of Quality (HoQ). It focuses on

the voice of customers or customer needs. The HoQ is often the only matrix used and needed in

the application of QFD because of its focus on evaluating the customer needs against the

technical responses to meet them. In addition, it is noted that to produce other QFD matrices can

consume as much as 80% of a company’s employees (Cohen, 1995). The proposed evaluation

system will utilize the concepts of QFD and focus on developing a HoQ for interior finish

materials used on floors, walls and ceilings.

4.1.2 House of Quality (HoQ)

As mentioned earlier, the HoQ is often the only matrix developed within a QFD approach. The

HoQ works as a conceptual map that provides the means for inter-functional planning and

communications (Hauser & Clausing, 1988). Figure 1 displays the House of Quality, as outlined

by the various ‘rooms’ or sections. Each room/section holds information specific to a part of the

QFD procedure.

Figure 1-The House of Quality (Cohen, 1995)

39

Room A displays the list of customer wants. The customer wants are characterized as WHATs,

which represent “WHAT are the customers looking for”. Room B displays the results obtained

from various customers based on the formulated list of customer wants. Room C consists of

technical characteristics that adhere to the customer wants. These technical terms are

characterized as HOWs. The HOWs are the technical terms that meet the identified WHATs.

Room D displays the correlation between each customer wants and each technical characteristic.

Room D is often referred to as the Relationship Matrix, as it consists of the relationship between

each WHAT and each HOW characteristic. The roof, or Room E displays how each technical

characteristic relates to one another. It is defined as the Correlation Matrix and represents the

interdependencies among HOWs. Finally, Room F displays the results of the prioritization of the

technical characteristics in satisfying customer wants. It represents the impact of each HOW

characteristic on the WHATs and ranks the weights of each HOW.

4.1.3 House of Quality for the Material Evaluation Tool

For the basis of this research, the QFD HoQ analysis will consist of only the customer wants

(Room A), technical characteristics (Room C), relationship matrix (Room D) and technical

targets (Room F). Room B, the planning matrix and the correlation matrix (Room E/roof) are not

included in the evaluation system HoQ. The planning matrix (Room B), has been removed as it

relates to results obtained from various customers. The proposed evaluation system is unique to

the current user. It focuses on developing a HoQ for that specific, individual user. As a result

Room B is unnecessary for this research. The correlation matrix (Room E/roof) has also been

removed in this evaluation system because it represents how each technical characteristic relates

to one another. However, each technical characteristic is specific to an interior finish component.

The technical characteristic are the actual building materials themselves, which are grouped as

40

interior floor, wall and ceiling finishes. The materials are unrelated to one another as users are

given the freedom to select any combination of material they desire without consequence. In

addition to these HoQ stipulations, the multi-criteria decision support analysis method of

TOPSIS has been added to the QFD procedure. The TOPSIS analysis, outlined in Section 4.2

below, will be incorporated into the evaluation tool to calculate the results of the prioritization of

each technical characteristic. Figure 2 displays the HoQ developed for the material evaluation

tool.

Figure 2- Evaluation System House of Quality

In the evaluation tool, the customer wants are already pre-determined by the evaluation

characteristics each material is assessed on and shown in Table 8 and Figure 2 above. In

addition, the technical characteristics are simply the various interior finish materials outlined in

Table 7. Although the customer wants are already pre-determined, the importance of each

41

criteria as it relates to the individual user is not determined. Users of the evaluation tool are

required to input their level of importance, how they generally feel, about each evaluation

characteristic as it relates to interior finish materials. Users address each requirement by ranking

them with linguistic variables as seen in Figure 3. The linguistic variables are translated to

numerical variables to be used in material score calculations. The relationship matrix is

composed of all the data collected as discussed in Section 3.3 Data Collection. Technical targets

relate to the score of each interior finish material in its use on floors, walls, and ceilings. The

material scores are specific to each individual user as they are correlated to the users’ level of

importance for each evaluation characteristic. The material scores are calculated by TOPSIS

parameters.

Figure 3- User Level of Importance Scale for Evaluation Characteristics

4.2 Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solutions (TOPSIS)

The process of creating, evaluating and implementing strategic decisions is characterised by high

levels of uncertainty, potential synergies between different options, long term consequences, and

the absence of key stakeholders (Montibeller & Franco, 2010). Multi-criteria decision analysis

(MCDA) methods have been utilized to ensure the participation of key stakeholders and

overcome these issues. MCDA deals with the application of advanced analytical methods that

explicitly consider multiple criteria to help make better choices in a decision-making

environment. Since the early 1960s, there have been many different methods of MCDA. TOPSIS

is an idea point multi-criteria decision analysis method. TOPSIS was originally developed by

42

Hwang and Yoon in 1981 as an alternative method to Elimination and Choice Expressing

Reality. The TOPSIS idea is that the chosen alternative should have the shortest distance from

the ideal solution and farthest distance from the negative solution (Hwang & Yoon, 1981).

TOPSIS compares a set of alternatives by identifying the weights of each criteria, normalising

the scores for each criteria and then calculating the geometric distance between each alternative

in comparison to the ideal alternative. The alternative that scores best in each criteria becomes

the preferred option.

4.2.1 TOPSIS Algorithm

The interior finish materials outlined in Table 7 represent the alternatives utilized in the TOPSIS

analysis. MCDA problems involve criteria that is of varying importance to decision makers. In

the evaluation tool, the criteria for TOPSIS is represented by the customer wants within the HoQ.

The weight of each criteria is inputted by the system user. This inputted weight is translated as

the criteria weight needed for a TOPSIS analysis.

The Euclidean distance (“as the bird flies” distance) approach is used to evaluate the relative

closeness of the alternatives to the ideal solution, assuming every criterion has an increasing or

decreasing scale. Figure 4 displays five alternatives labelled A-E. There are two criteria shown

R1 and R2 along with the points for ‘ideal solution’ and ‘negative solution’. Based on Euclidean

distance and assuming the weights of each alternative are equal, point C is the closest to the ideal

solution and therefore the alternative with the highest score.

43

Figure 4- Illustration of Distance to Ideal and Negative Solution by Euclidean Distance

In reality, each alternative receives a score that is calculated by a series of equations outlined

below. The distance between the ideal point and each alternative is calculated by Equation (1):

(1)

The distance between the negative ideal point and each alternative is calculated by Equation (2):

(2)

The score (relative closeness to the ideal point) for each alternative is calculated by Equation (3):

(3)

44

In the above equations, vij is the weighted standardized criterion value of the ith alternative that

is calculated by multiplying the standardized criterion value by the corresponding weight. The

corresponding weight relates to the user importance of each evaluation characteristic outlined in

Table 8. Accordingly, v+j is the ideal value and v-j is the negative ideal value for the jth criterion.

Finally Ci+ represents the overall score calculated from the relationship of the sum of negative

ideal values Si- and sum of ideal values Si+ (Malczewski, 1999).

4.3 The Material Selection Evaluation Tool

The combination of QFD and TOPSIS produce the HoQ shown in Figure 2. A detailed HoQ for

the material evaluation tool can be seen in Figure 5. It is important to note that arbitrary values

for the importance of each evaluation characteristic have been chosen in Figure 5. Technical

targets are shown for each component of interior finish (walls, floors, ceilings) in numerical and

graphical form. The technical targets (score) of each building material will be presented to the

system user. All material data will be available for users to consult once the materials have been

scored. Users are presented all data in condensed tables as seen in Appendix D.

45

Figure 5- Evaluation Tool HoQ with Arbitrary Importance Scores

46

4.3.1 Process Flow and Functional Architecture

The evaluation tool can be accessed at www.chooseyourinterior.ca. Screenshots of the evaluation

tool can be found in Appendix D. The process flow of the evaluation tool is outlined by Figure 6

and detailed below.

Figure 6: Decision Making Process for the Evaluation Tool

Step 1, users are given some background on the evaluation tool and can begin their assessment.

User profiles are created internally by gathering input from the user on their importance scores

associated with each evaluation characteristic. Users are asked to place a weight to each

evaluation characteristic by means of linguistic variables. Once users have ranked their level of

importance for each evaluation characteristic their internal user profile is complete. The

evaluation tool converts the linguistic variables of user importance to numerical values for

http://www.chooseyourinterior.ca/

47

calculation purposes. Using the combination of HoQ, TOPSIS and their internal user profile,

each interior finish material is scored and displayed within each category of wall finish, floor

finish and ceiling finish. In addition, users are allowed to view complete data for each material

against the evaluation characteristics. Users will be able to make their own conclusions on which

material they most prefer. The material selection evaluation tool is designed as a web-based

application and hosted off a web platform that is accessible to any internet user. The functional

architecture for the evaluation tool as a web base application can be seen below in Figure 7.

Figure 7- Functional Architecture of the Material Evaluation Tool

The User Interface is designed to be isolated from the server layers. This means it does not

recognize that a database exists and does not send information directly to the evaluation process.

48

The User Interface is designed as so for security reasons and to allow any part of the evaluation

tool to be altered without damaging the tools’ integrity.

The evaluation tool works by gathering data from the user within the User Interface. The

importance of each evaluation characteristic as it relates to the user is converted to numerical

values and sent to the Web Server (Nginx) for processing. Nginx streams the input through a

Unix Socket to the application server (UWSGI). The data is then streamed to the middleware for

parsing, cleaning and validating. From the middleware the collected user importance values are

sent to the evaluation algorithms to be computed. The results from the TOPSIS algorithm

analysis are sent back upstream to the User Interface. Users are displayed each interior finish

material along with their corresponding score both numerically and graphically.

The evaluation tool was created by a variety of technologies. The User Interface was composed

of HTML, CSS and Javascript. Nginx was utilized for the Web Server along with UWSGI as the

application server. Both communicate through a Unix Socket. The middleware and evaluation

algorithms were created using Django Framework in Python. For the database engine,

PostgreSQL was used by the application for storage of its own internal data. Appendix D

displays a variety of screenshots from the evaluation tool.

49

5.0 Evaluation and Validation

After establishing the material selection evaluation tool, the final step was to validate its function

and purpose by receiving feedback on the tool from various experts in the construction industry.

In doing so, a strategic set of industry interviews were completed. The interviews were semi-

structured interviews utilizing ‘open’ and ‘closed-ended’ questioning with a specific order

(Naoum, 2004). The interviewees were chosen based on their respected positions within the field

of construction. During the interview process, all interviewees were given an explanation of the

purpose of the evaluation tool and shown its function. The primary goal of the validation process

was to gather feedback from industry members on the usefulness of the evaluation tool to

potential users, its potential implementation in the industry and gain knowledge on the current

decision making process for selecting interior finish materials. Each interview concluded by

having the interviewee rank their importance of each evaluation characteristic within the tool as

it relates to their construction field. The knowledge and data gathered in these interviews was

vital in the validation and progression of the evaluation tool. In addition, the rankings gathered

for each evaluation characteristic was translated to ‘expert rankings’ to help aid system users in

their decision making process.

5.1. Validation Questionnaire

A total of 20 interviews were completed. The semi-structured interview consisted of four major

components. The first component was obtaining details on each company that participated. This

includes the company name, their field of work and the position of the interviewee. Table 16

below represents the various industry experts involved in the validation process. An outline of

50

the semi-structured validation questionnaire utilized within the interview process can be found in

Appendix E.

Table 16: Interviewed industry experts for validation of the tool

Position Company Field of Work

1 Senior Associate Turner Fleischer Architects Architecture

2 Assistant Superintendent Ellis Don General Contractor

3 Executive Director Residential and Civil Construction Alliance

of Ontario Industry Organization Research

4 Architect G.Bruce Stratton Architects Architecture

5 Facilities Manager George Brown College Facilities Management Department

6 Property Manager University of Toronto Property Management

7 Property Manager Royale Grande Property Management Property Management

8 Design Centre Specialist Ryerson University Interior Design

9 Design Centre Manager Lanterra Developments Ltd Design and Development

10 Architect G.Bruce Stratton Architects Architecture

11 Property Manager Royale Grande Property Management Property Management

12 President Krijoh Inc Interior Design

13 VP Construction Operations Lanterra Developments Ltd Design and Development

14 Project Manager Turner Fleischer Architects Architecture

15 Project Coordinator Lanterra Developments Ltd Design and Development

16 Store Manager Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Material Supplier

17 Junior Estimator Ellis Don General Contractor

18 Leading Designer Adler & Associates Ltd Interior Design

19 VP Construction Operations Steelrite Construction-Builder

20 Superintendent Ellis Don General Contractor

5.2 Current User Engagement on Construction Projects

The next section in the validation questionnaire was obtaining feedback on user engagement in

construction projects. The questions in this section reflected on the various methods of user

engagement currently experienced in construction projects, the importance of user engagement,

51

and the issues affecting user involvement. Interviewees were initially asked, based on their

experiences, what level of priority is currently given to engaging end-users into construction

projects. Interviewees ranked the level of priority given to engaging end-users on a scale of 0-10.

After a series of questions relating to end-user involvement in construction projects, interviewees

were asked to rank, on a scare of 0-10, what level of priority ‘should’ be placed on involving

end-users into construction projects. A comparison between the priority levels given to currently

engaging end-users into construction projects and what priority experts believe should be given

to user engagement is seen in Table 17.

Table 17: Importance of user engagement in construction

Company

CURRENT priority

level of engaging end-

users

SUGGESTED priority

level of engaging end-

users

1 Turner Fleischer Architects 3 7

2 Ellis Don 5 7

3 RCCAO 4 8

4 Bruce Stratton Architects 2 9

5 George Brown College 6 8

6 University of Toronto 3 8

7 Royale Grande Management 3 7

8 Ryerson University 5 8

9 Lanterra Developments 5 7

10 Bruce Stratton Architects 3 8

11 Royale Grande Management 3 8

12 Krijoh Inc 3 8


14 Turner Fleischer Architects 5 7


16 Lowe's Home Improvement 5 8

17 Ellis Don 6 7

18 Adler & Associates Ltd 3 7

19 Steelrite 5 8

20 Ellis Don 3 7

AVERAGE SCORE 4.0 7.6

52

The results show that the current level of priority given to engaging end-users into construction

projects varies from low to moderate with an average score of 4.0 out of 10. In comparison,

industry members believe that the priority level for engaging end-users should be ranked with

much more importance. The suggest priority level on engaging end-users into construction

projects, was scored as a 7.6 out of 10. This proves that members of the construction industry

believe that more priority should be placed on the involvement of end-users into construction

projects.

5.2.1 How Users are Engaged in Projects

Industry experts were asked if they believe that involving end-users into construction designs can

have a positive impact on the project. Every expert interviewed responded with a definite ‘yes’.

A wide range of responses were gathered from the question. Table 18 summarizes the responses

received in concise detail.

Table 18: Expert opinions on user engagement

Company

How can involving end-users into construction designs

have positive impacts?

1 Turner Fleischer Architects Creates ownership & understanding

2 Ellis Don Creates a more valued design

3 RCCAO Allows for customization

4 Bruce Stratton Architects Provides feedback to decision makers & user appreciation

5 George Brown College Influences decision makers & gives them an understanding

6 University of Toronto Creates less resilient occupants

7 Royale Grande Management Opinions become heard & better educated occupants

8 Ryerson University Leads to end user accountability, ownership and respect

9 Lanterra Developments Creates more pleasing finished products

10 Bruce Stratton Architects Helps decision makers & desirability in designs

11 Royale Grande Management Can lead to better user centered designs

12 Krijoh Inc. Gives them ownership and involvement

13 Lanterra Developments Gives user sense of ownership and customization

14 Turner Fleischer Architects Assesses and understands user comfort levels

15 Lanterra Developments Creates less resilient end-users

53

16 Lowe’s Home Improvement Improves the skill base of customers

17 Ellis Don Leads to less resilient end-users

18 Adler & Associates Ltd Gives users ownership to a project

19 Steelrite Better control on the finished product

20 Ellis Don Creates more user-centered finished products

In summary, a few common themes can be made from the gathered responses. It can be said,

with confidence, that engaging end-users into construction projects creates better facility designs

because it allows decision makers to gather more knowledge and feedback to aid in their

decision making process. The finished product becomes more customized to potential users. In

addition, through the process of involving end-users, it gives them more ownership,

responsibility and understanding of the finished product. This leads to less resilient, more

educated and grateful end-users.

Research has shown that post occupancy evaluation surveys are a major form of user

engagement currently employed in the construction industry. However, it is understood that this

may not be the most commonly utilized form of user engagement. As a result, industry experts

were asked what are the current ways users are involved into construction projects from their

experiences, as well as how adequate those ways are. A wide variety of responses were given for

current ways users are involved in construction projects. Ironically, post occupancy evaluation

surveys were rarely mentioned. The responses proved that end-users are often minimally

involved in the design of facilities and, for the most part, are not given a chance to provide

valuable input. A majority of the responses mention that the owner or client often deals with

engaging end-users, and in fact the end-users are indirectly involved in projects. Common

responses received are end-users are involved in the preliminary stages of projects through

demographic studies, focus groups, questionnaires, planning committees or community

54

meetings. It is evident that all members of the construction industry who were interviewed

understand the importance of engaging end-users in facility designs and eluded to the lack of, or

poor current user involvement methods.

5.2.2 Issues and Barriers Affecting User Involvement

The results from the industry interviews proved that members of the construction industry

understand the importance and benefits of engaging end-users. Therefore it is important to gather

feedback from industry experts on the issues and barriers affecting the involvement of end-users

into the construction process. First and foremost, it was mentioned by almost all industry experts

that cost always governs each and every project. The involvement of users is often not

considered because of the impacts it may have to the cost of the project. To elaborate more,

interviewees were asked how user involvement impacts the cost of projects. The following are a

few summarized notable responses:

Users are not knowledgeable and difficulties with user communication would affect

projects

There are too many opinions of end-users, difficult to satisfy everyone, creates a

constraint in project time

Users have a poor understanding and their lack of education leads to unrealistic

expectations

These responses are very similar to the points found in many literature sources on to why end-

users are often not engaged into the construction process. To reiterate, the following three points

are commonly found in literature:

55

Users do not imagine what needs “could” be met because they have no knowledge or

understanding of what can be expected while their individual needs change (Beguin,

2007)

Designers characterize users as conservative, resistant to change and innovation, and an

obstacle to their own creativity (Loup-Escande, Burkhardt, Christmann, & Richir, 2014)

Ineffective communication methods have resulted in negative attitudes to engage end-

users in construction projects (Pemsel et al, 2010)

Information received from literature sources on reasons users are not involvement in construction

projects, is in fact supported by members of the construction industry. However, it is important

to understand which of the three literature supported points are most commonly viewed as the

dominant issue resisting user involvement in construction. As a result, the three literary points

were presented to each interviewee. Industry experts were asked, of the three statements, which

best describes the reason(s) for not involving end-users into construction designs. Table 19

displays the three statements and places a score on how many times the statements were agreed

upon by industry experts. It is important to note that a total of 20 interviews were completed and

interviewees were given the opportunity to select more than one statement.

Table 19: Reasons why users are not involved in projects

Amount

Selected

Which statement(s) best describes the reason for not involving end-users into

construction designs?

16 End-users are uneducated and unknowledgeable with regards to construction practices

8 It is difficult to satisfy the needs of end-users without compromising the project’s integrity

15 The current construction industry lacks a system to properly communicate with end-users

The data gathered from the industry interviews confirms that the two biggest reasons for not

involving end-users into the construction process are: their lack of education and knowledge, and

56

their currently lacks a system to properly communicate with end-users. This proves that in order

for there to be more user involvement in construction projects, these two statements need to be

solved.

5.3 Selection of Interior Finish Materials

The third step of the interview process was gathering knowledge from industry experts on: the

current process for the selection of interior finish materials, the knowledge of end-users as it

relates to material finishes, impacts of educating end-users on materials and the effect of

allowing users to select their preference for interior finish material. The responses gathered from

the above questions are beneficial to validating the use of interior finish materials within the

material evaluation tool.

First and foremost, it is important to understand the general process currently used when

selecting building materials responsible for interior finishes. In summary, the responses highly

entailed that the selection process for interior finishes becomes strictly between the client and

project stakeholders more specifically those involved with the project design. Architects and

designers are heavily involved in this aspect, but the final decisions are governed by the client.

The choices of materials are often made based on their cost. However, performance of the

material and its appearance are the next biggest factors in material selection. A contributing

factor to the material selection process is familiarity with materials and past experiences. In

summary, decisions are based on cost, specifications, ensuring the proper performance,

aesthetics and finally familiarity with materials.

57

Interviewees were asked to rank the level of knowledge they believe the common end-user has

about the environmental, economic and performance impact of interior finish materials. Table 20

below outlines their responses.

Table 20: Expert opinion on level of knowledge of end-users for interior finish materials

Company

Level of knowledge end-users have on interior

finish materials

1 Turner Fleischer Architects Moderate (5)

2 Ellis Don Moderate (5)

3 RCCAO Moderate (4)

4 Bruce Stratton Architects Weak (2)

5 George Brown College Moderate (5)

6 University of Toronto Weak (3)

7 Royale Grande Management Moderate (4)

8 Ryerson University Moderate (4)

9 Lanterra Developments Moderate (5)

10 Bruce Stratton Architects Weak (3)

11 Royale Grande Management Weak (2)

12 Krijoh Inc Weak (3)

13 Lanterra Developments Weak (3)

14 Turner Fleischer Architects Weak (3)

15 Lanterra Developments Weak (2)

16 Lowe’s Home Improvement Moderate (5)

17 Ellis Don Weak (3)

18 Adler & Associates Ltd Weak (2)

19 Steelrite Weak (3)

20 Ellis Don Weak (3)

AVERAGE SCORE Weak (3)

According to industry experts, it is perceived that end-users have a low understanding of interior

finish materials with a score of 3 out of 9. Many of the responses noted that end-users have the

ability to gather plenty of knowledge from literature sources or the internet if they need to.

However, all industry experts mentioned the importance of end-users being able to consult a

single source for all their material information needs. In addition, interviewees were asked

58

whether educating users on the impacts of interior finish materials could benefit construction

projects. Similarly to an earlier question asking the importance of engaging users into

construction projects, every repose affirmed that ‘yes’ further educating users would be

beneficial to projects. Some common responses are summarized below:

Communication can spark innovation and support decision of design team

Creates more knowledgeable users and gives them an understanding on what to expect

Better understanding of materials use, purpose and selection

Projects become more satisfying and relatable to users

Another important question industry members were asked was; would allowing users to select

their preference of interior finish material drastically impact the integrity of the project? This was

a very important question because although every industry member agreed that educating and

involving end-users can be beneficial to projects, would involving the user too much cause

issues? For the most part the responses remained fairly positive. There were more positive

responses expressing ‘no’ it would not drastically impact the project but those responses were

often accompanied with ways it could cause an issue. Subsequently there were two responses of

‘yes’ it would impact the integrity of the project at hand. Table 21 below shows the negative and

positive responses to the above question.

Table 21: Expert opinion on how end-users interior finish preference impacts projects

Would allowing users to select their preference of interior finish material impact the

integrity of the project?

YES NO

May affect building codes Not a major cost to project

May not satisfy performance specifications No impact on construction process

Too many opinions may create issues Increase end-user responsibility

LEED requirements can’t be customized Enhances users comfort

59

Changes can be fairly easily made

Users fuel the selection process

As seen in Table 21 there are positive and negative impacts to allowing users to select their own

interior finish material. However the negative impacts stem from making the selection process

more specific to projects based on its specifications and requirements. In order to allow users to

select their preference of interior finish material, building codes and performance specifications

need to be met.

5.4 Feedback on the Material Evaluation Tool

The next step was to receive feedback on the designed material evaluation tool. This includes

understanding its benefits to potential end-users and project stakeholders. As well as a discussion

of which interior finish materials and what evaluation characteristics need to be added/removed.

Finally the last step is to have each industry expert rank their level of importance for each

evaluation characteristic. This helps to understand the weighting of each evaluation

characteristics in the construction industry and provide end-users with an idea of ‘expert

rankings’ for each characteristic.

Industry experts were asked to rank how helpful the evaluation tool would be for potential

facility end-users on a scale from 0-10. In addition, they were asked how important do they

believe the evaluation tool can be within the construction industry on a similar scale. Table 22

outlines the scoring responses for each question.

60

Table 22: How helpful the evaluation tool is to users and the construction industry

Company

How helpful would

the evaluation tool

be for end-users?

How helpful would the

evaluation tool be within the

construction industry?

Turner Fleischer Architects 8 8

Ellis Don 7 8

RCCAO 7 7

Bruce Stratton Architects 9 9

George Brown College 7 7

University of Toronto 9 8

Royale Grande Management 8 7

Ryerson University 8 6

Lanterra Developments 7 6

Bruce Stratton Architects 9 7

Royale Grande Management 8 6

Krijoh Inc 9 7


Turner Fleischer Architects 8 8


Lowe's Home Improvement 9 7

Ellis Don 8 6

Adler & Associates 8 7

Steelrite 8 6

Ellis Don 8 7

Average Score 8.1 7.0

Overall, the material evaluation tool had an average score of 8.1 out of 10 with regards to how

helpful it would be to end-users and a score of 7.0 out of 10 for its helpfulness to the construction

industry. Industry members were also asked to elaborate on why they gave the material

evaluation tool the score they did. A summary of the common responses received from the

interviews can be seen in Table 23 below.

61

Table 23: Expert opinions on how the evaluation tool can be useful

How can the material evaluation tool be useful?

For users For the construction industry

Creates database for all material information Gather feedback from end-users

Assists with their selection of material Provides real time information

Not complicated Better understanding of end-user types

Educates users and provides them feedback Effective communication method

Easily accessible Feedback is specific and compressed

Provides real time feedback Can be linked to other applications

Allows users to compare materials Meets consumer preference to building performance

Nothing currently available for users Benchmarking idea

It is evident from industry member responses and feedback that the evaluation tool would be

helpful to any user because of its simplicity and effective method to educate and assist end-users

in their selection of interior finish material. In addition, it is noted that the tool can provide good

feedback for decision makers by allowing them to gain a further understanding of potential end-

users through an effective communication method.

5.4.1 Additions and Removals for the Evaluation Tool

The materials for the evaluation tool were chosen because of their common use and early

consultation with industry experts. The evaluation tool incorporates just a sample of the materials

readily available for use as material finishes. Industry experts were asked to approve the existing

materials in the evaluation tool as well as suggest materials to add or remove. Some common

suggested materials were: bamboo flooring, laminate flooring, glass panels and plaster ceilings.

Expanding on the evaluation tool would consist of incorporating these materials. Subsequently,

industry experts were also asked to give their opinion on the various evaluation criteria used in

62

the tool. The 19 evaluation criteria proved to be very sufficient in providing proper education to

users on the various materials. Industry experts were pleased by the many fields of data

available.

5.4.2 Industry Expert Evaluation Characteristic Rankings

Industry experts were asked to rank the importance of each evaluation characteristic embedded

in the tool. Their responses help create an expert ranking to aid users in their interior finish

selection process. The expert ranking will allow users to compare their importance levels to that

of industry professionals. It will also acts as a guide for users who are unfamiliar with certain

evaluation characteristics. Users would be able to reflect on the expert rankings as they weight

their importance on each evaluation characteristic.

The comparison between the expert ranking and a user’s individual ranking can be particularly

helpful to understanding which trends or factors influence a users’ selection of building material.

In addition, it would be interesting to note the differences from the users’ level of importance

and those of industry professionals. The expert rankings for each evaluation characteristic is

shown in Table 24. The expert ranking is achieved by taking the average score from the total

industry interviews completed.

Table 24: Expert ranking of the importance of each evaluation characteristic

Evaluation Characteristic Base Importance

Global Warming Potential 6

Embodied Energy 8

Water Consumption 7

Material Cost 8

Labour Cost 8

Maintenance Cost 7

Demolition Cost 5

63

Installation Time 8

Removal Time 5

Life Span 8

Self-Installation 5

Ease of Installation 6

Health and Safety Risks 8

Thermal Insulation 8

Fire Performance 8

Sound Performance 7

Moisture Resistance 8

Freedom from Maintenance 7

Durability 8

Industry expert importance rankings were particularly useful to help create a common language

between project stakeholders and potential end-users. Decision makers would be able to evaluate

end-users importance scores while end-users would be able to understand how project decision

makers perceive the importance of each evaluation characteristic. This allows for the attitudes of

end-users to mix with project decision makers. Ultimately this would lead to project designs that

are easily understood by all parties.

5.5 Summary of the Validation Questionnaire Results

The validation questionnaire was very useful in gathering feedback from experts involved in

construction projects. The feedback received proved the worth of the proposed material selection

evaluation tool. Speaking with industry experts confirmed the current issues with user

involvement in the construction industry. As noted by the gathered responses, it is evident that

experts feel there should be a greater need to involve end-users into construction projects. In

summary, industry experts feel that the current level of user engagement is very low with a score

of 4 out of 10, but experts feel strongly about raising the engagement level of end-users to an

average score of 7.6 out of 10. Experts discussed that end-users commonly have little to no

64

involvement in project design decisions. It was mentioned that sometimes end-user feedback

may be collected through focus groups, questionnaires or community meetings, but for the most

part little is done to better understand end-users and engage them into projects. However, experts

were not hesitant to discuss the potential benefits of involving end-users into the construction

process. Benefits include, creating a more customized and appreciated finished product while

giving end-users more ownership, responsibility and understanding of the project. Ultimately,

any method that looks to increase user involvement would be helpful to end-users, decision

makers and project stakeholders in an effort to create a more valued finished product.

Commonly, the three main reasons to not engaging end-users into construction projects are; end-

users are uneducated, satisfying end-users needs affects the project’s integrity and there lacks a

system to properly communicate with end-users. Table 19 represents how industry experts relate

to each of the three statements. Experts agreed that the most common reasons for not involving

end-users is because of their lack of education and the lack of effective communication methods

currently available. Of the 20 industry experts interviewed, 16 experts agreed that user education

resists their involvement into construction projects. A lack of an effective communication

method was confirmed by 15 of 20 experts. Difficulty in satisfying end-users needs was noted by

only 8 experts. The goal of the material evaluation tool is to discredit these issues of user

engagement through its application. The evaluation tool’s primary goal is to educate end-users

on the various interior finish materials available and guide them in selecting which material they

most prefer. The tools availability and applicability as an easily accessible application allows it

to be an effective communication method to gather feedback and data from potential end-users.

It was important to validate the use of interior finish materials applied to the evaluation tool. For

the most part, the selection of interior finish materials is completed by a discussion between the

65

client and the design team. Materials are often chosen based on their cost, performance and

general aesthetics. A major reason for not engaging end-users into the decision process for

selecting interior finish materials is because of their lack of knowledge and understanding of

materials. According to the responses received from industry experts, end-users knowledge on

interior finish materials had a score of just 3 out of 9. However, the evaluation tool is designed to

instantaneously educate end-users on commonly used interior finish materials. By eliminating

this barrier, it would promote engaging end-users into selecting interior finish materials. Experts

agreed that educating end-users on material finishes would be very beneficial to projects by

giving them a better understanding on what to expect while promoting and supporting the

material choices of the design team. Industry experts mentioned how allowing end-users to be

involved in the selection of interior finishes would increase their comfort and responsibility to

the project. However, it is important to ensure that allowing end-users to select interior finish

materials does not affect building codes or performance specifications.

Industry experts were impressed with the material evaluation tool. Experts heavily supported the

evaluation tool and its helpfulness to users and the construction industry. The evaluation tool

received a rating of 8.1 out of 10 for its potential helpfulness to users and a rating of 7.0 out of

10 for its usefulness to the construction industry. Experts were impressed by the ability of the

tool to educate end-users and guide them with their selection process while being very user-

friendly. From an industry perspective, the tool was praised for its ability to gather user feedback

in a real time manor and its accessibility and effectiveness to communicate with end-users.

Although the tool does not feature all of the interior finish material options currently available, it

is clear that it provides users with a strong list of commonly used interior finish materials and

extensive information for each material.

66

In conclusion the series of interviews with industry experts generated some positive insight on

the proposed evaluation tool. The evaluation tool was validated as a good stepping stone for a

new method of engaging end-users with lots of potential. It is understood that there is a need to

improve the current methods of user involvement in construction. Internally, members of the

construction industry understand that there needs to be more done to engage end-users. The

benefits of doing so are understood by all project stakeholders. Engaging users into the selection

of interior finish materials is a very sensible and feasible application. The current method of

allowing owners/clients to work with the design team to select interior finish materials needs to

be revised and incorporate end-users into the decision process. The proposed evaluation tool can

be beneficial to all users along with the construction industry. It is an optimistic step in the right

direction to engaging end-users by prioritizing their education on materials. A more

knowledgeable end-user and a strong communication method is vital to the modern construction

industry. These two characteristics are the basis to the idea and design of the evaluation tool.

67

6.0 Conclusion

6.1 Contribution to Users

The material evaluation tool is readily available as a web-based application accessible to any

internet user. The material evaluation tool is available online at www.chooseyourinterior.ca. The

evaluation tool works to help users select which interior finish material is best suited for them.

Its main goal is to provide users with extensive information and data on interior finish materials.

In addition it supports and assist them with their selection process by formulating scores for each

material as they relate to individual users.

Extensive research on each interior finish material was completed. As mentioned earlier, a series

of literature, programs and interviews were utilized to gather all necessary data for each material.

The evaluation tool becomes a single data base for users to gather all the necessary information

they need for each interior finish material. The information is presented to users in a clear and

concise manor from the evaluation tool database. This becomes a very valuable asset for users.

Presenting all material information from one database removes the need for users to individually

research each material. In addition, users rank their level of importance to each evaluation

characteristic. The tool uses this information to internally profile users and mathematically select

which material could be best suited for the user. The scoring of each material as they relate to

individual users becomes a strong indicator for users on which material they may most prefer.

The evaluation tool is unique by allowing any user to gather material information and assist them

in their decision making process. The tool acts as a good reference source for users as a form of

an educational software while it assists users on deciding which material best suits their needs.

http://www.chooseyourinterior.ca/

68

6.2 Contribution to the Construction Industry

The material evaluation tool is regarded by industry experts as very useful to the construction

industry. However its implementation is based on the major assumption that the ‘pull’ factors to

implement the evaluation tool outweigh the ‘push’ factors within an organization (Pheng &

Yeap, 2001). The implementation of the evaluation tool is subject to push and pull factors that

vary among different organizations. The ‘pull’ factors such as, creating more educated facility

users and demanding better quality services, provides incentive to implement the evaluation tool.

However ‘push’ factors such as code regulations and lack of awareness would cause decision

makers to not support the evaluation tool.

From a construction perspective, the evaluation tool can be useful in a variety of ways. The

evaluation tool can be utilized by project stakeholders to gather knowledge from a specific set of

users. The tool can be implemented to a specific project, targeting end-user feedback. The tool

would be made available to users through its web-based application or simplified into a mobile

application. Project decision makers could make use of the tool in two ways. First, as users input

their level of importance for each evaluation characteristic, this would allow decision makers to

profile user types. Understanding what is important to a user when it comes to interior finish

materials would be beneficial to selecting types of material used in a project. A better

understanding of users would promote design decisions and potentially validate those decisions.

Knowledge of user profiles can avoid debates and discussions that may delay projects.

The evaluation tool is designed as a template for user education and communication but it can be

altered to become very specific to projects. The current evaluation tool educates and assists users

on their selection of interior finish materials. If implemented to the design of a facility, the

evaluation tool can be adjusted to produce real time and effective feedback for clients and the

69

design team. Users can be presented a few material options for specific locations within a

project. Decision makers would allow users to learn about each material through the application

and can withhold or add any additional information that needs to be presented to users. This in

turn creates a natural profiling of the materials present in the evaluation tool. Project decision

makers are given the opportunity to enhance product performance and appeal to users through

the evaluation tool by providing them with education on materials. In addition, project decision

makers can ensure that the material options presented to users satisfy the necessary building

codes and project requirements. Users would select which material they would most prefer and

that information is then passed on to project stakeholders in real time. This information can then

be used to make effective, supported and knowledgeable design decisions. The open ended idea

of the evaluation tool allows for the ability to incorporate it directly to other construction

software. This would help produce an even more accurate customization of user needs.

Needless to say, the implementation of the evaluation tool can be beneficial to current

construction projects in a variety of ways. It can be used as a method to gain a better

understanding of users through profiling what evaluation characteristics are important to them. In

addition, the evaluation tool gives the ability to profile the proposed material choices and adjust

them to be directly applied to a specific project. No matter how it is implemented, the value of

the evaluation tool within the construction industry is very strong. In an industry that does so

little to understand and involve end-users, occupants, consumers and customers; the simple

notion of presenting a new method of user involvement can have huge benefits. Users would

become more educated and aware of design decisions. This would lead to more responsible end-

users with a sense of pride and ownership to a project. Users would gain an appreciation for

projects by believing their input and views were considered by project decision makers.

70

6.3 Future Work

Future work of the system includes upgrading the evaluation tool to become more analytical and

responsive to user selection. Currently, users select their level of importance for each evaluation

characteristic and material scores are calculated specific for each user. Users are then given the

option to select which material they most prefer. The evaluation tool can be upgraded to include

asking users about the reasons for their material selections. This would entail users to select a

material, and upon their selection, a commenting box would appear asking users why they

selected this material. By taking the evaluation tool to this step of user commenting, it would

generate specific feedback on what factor, or factors, most influence a users’ material selection.

Another consideration would be to link the tool to current construction software to make it more

relevant. By connecting it to BIM systems, it allows project stakeholders to achieve information

from potential end-users in real time and apply the collected feedback directly to projects. This

would ensure that project decisions are focused on achieving maximal comfort for facility end-

users. Another idea is to link the evaluation tool to visualization software to allow users to

envision project designs and ultimately gain a better understanding. This presents the idea of

advancing the tool as a mobile application. Users would be able to download the application and

input their feedback and selections through their mobile devices. This would produce real time

feedback results for decision makers while enhancing user involvement and accessibility.

6.4 Conclusion

There is a need in the construction industry to do more to involve end-users into construction

projects. The benefits of involving end-users cannot be denied. User involvement leads to the

design of more user valued finished products and end-users that are more responsible,

knowledgeable and less resilient. The designed evaluation tool is intended to ensure that end-

71

users are properly educated on the various material options for interior wall, floor and ceiling

finishes. In addition, it employs the concepts of Quality Function Deployment and the multi

criteria decision making method of TOPSIS to assist and support a user’s selection of interior

finish material. The evaluation tool becomes a template as an effective method of

communication between end-users and project stakeholders. The tool ensures users have all the

knowledge and data to make educated material selections. In addition, the evaluation tool

becomes very useful for the current construction industry. It effectively bridges the gap between

end-user opinions and the needs of project stakeholders. The evaluation tool indirectly profiles

users for the benefits of project decisions. A better understanding of end-users leads to more

educated design decisions. In addition, the materials evaluated in the tool are also profiled.

Project decision makers understand the issues or concerns users may have with a product, while

the evaluation tool allows them enhance the appeal of specific products to users. Finally the tools

simplistic template allows for it to be re-designed and adjusted to adhere to a specific project or

be connected to other construction software.

.

72

Appendix A- GaBi 6 Data

Figure 8-Global Warming Potential from GaBi 6

Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan

IPCC global warming ` Stone Brick Aluminum Window Frame Wood Veneer Paint PVC Window Frame Wooden Window Frame Gypsum Drywall

excl biogenic carbon 1kg 1kg 1pc 1kg 1kg 1pc 1pc 1kg

kg CO2-Equiv. BR: Stoneware tiles CN: Brick PE DE: Aluminium window DE: Laminated wood DE: Paint emulsion DE: Window frame PVC-U DE: Wooden window PE EU-27: Gypsum Plasterboard

glazed PE (turn-tilt) (EN15804 A1-A3) PE panel board PE (EN15804 A5) PE (EN15804 A1-A3) PE ELCD/EUROGYPSUM

Input Flows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Flows Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Valuable substances 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Production residues in life cycle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deposited goods 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

US LCI Database 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Output

Flows Flows 0.232274684 0.207971508 9.007049682 0.396029113 0.010070412 8.13371833 7.537633645 2.128861346

Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Emissions to air 0.232274684 0.207971508 9.007049682 0.396029113 0.010070412 8.13371833 7.537633645 2.128861346

Emissions to fresh water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emissions to sea water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emissions to agricultural soil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emissions to industrial soil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IPCC global warming Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan

excl biogenic carbon ` Wool Carpet Vinyl Tile Linoleum Wallpaper Cork Vinyl Panel Nylon Carpet

kg CO2-Equiv. 1m2 4.38kg 2.88kg 1kg 2kg 1kg 1m2

EU-25: Carpet EU-25: Flooring PVC EU-25: Linoleum EU-27: Kraft paper EU-27: Resilient flooring RER: Polyvinyl chloride sheet EU-25: Carpet

Input (GK 21, LC 4) (VCT) EN 654 ERFMI flooring ERFMI (EN15804 A1-A3) PE Cork floor tiles EN 12104 (PVC) PlasticsEurope (GK 21, LC 1)

Flows Flows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Valuable substances 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Production residues in life cycle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deposited goods 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

US LCI Database 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Output

Flows Flows 12.06408216 6.065169682 5.725575657 0.845334643 3.298489583 3.184536689 5.808459394

Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Emissions to air 12.06408208 6.065169682 5.725575657 0.845334643 3.298489583 3.184536689 5.80845935

Emissions to fresh water 8.10E-08 0 0 0 0 0 4.37E-08

Emissions to sea water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emissions to agricultural soil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emissions to industrial soil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

73


CML2001 - Apr. 2013 Stone Brick Wooden Window Frame Aluminum Window Frame Wood Veneer Paint PVC Window Frame Gypsum Drywall

Abiotic Depletion (ADP fossil) 1kg 1kg 1pc 1pc 1kg 1kg 1pc 1kg

MJ BR: Stoneware tiles CN: Brick PE DE: Wooden window PE DE: Aluminium window DE: Laminated wood DE: Paint emulsion DE: Window frame PVC-U EU-27: Gypsum Plasterboard


Input Flows 3.467755013 2.158336402 100.4638131 108.8757982 7.777656157 0.016656098 130.3436144 28.76445809

Flows Resources 3.467755013 2.158336402 100.4638131 108.8757982 7.777656157 0.016656098 130.3436144 28.76445809

Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MJ

Output

Flows Flows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




Emissions to air 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emissions to fresh water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0





Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan

CML2001 - Apr. 2013 Nylon Carpet Wool Carpet Vinyl Tile Linoleum Wallpaper Cork Vinyl Panel

Abiotic Depletion (ADP fossil) 1m2 1m2 4.38kg 2.88kg 1kg 2kg 1kg

MJ EU-25: Carpet EU-25: Carpet EU-25: Flooring PVC EU-25: Linoleum EU-27: Kraft paper EU-27: Resilient flooring RER: Polyvinyl chloride sheet

(GK 21, LC 1) (GK 21, LC 4) (VCT) EN 654 ERFMI flooring ERFMI (EN15804 A1-A3) PE Cork floor tiles EN 12104 (PVC) PlasticsEurope

Input Flows 83.00195116 151.8017226 92.8716998 63.47827795 13.95493152 61.09786492 54.5210323

Flows Resources 83.00195116 151.8017226 92.8716998 63.47827795 13.95493152 61.09786492 54.5210323

Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MJ

Output

Flows Flows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




Emissions to air 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emissions to fresh water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0





Figure 9- Embodied Energy from GaBi 6

74

Figure 10-Water Consumption from GaBi 6


Total freshwater consumption Stone Brick Wooden Window Frame Aluminum Window Frame Wood Veneer Paint PVC Window Frame Gypsum Drywall

Including rainwater 1kg 1kg 1pc 1pc 1kg 1kg 1pc 1kg

Swiss Ecoscarcity BR: Stoneware tiles CN: Brick PE DE: Wooden window PE DE: Aluminium window DE: Laminated wood DE: Paint emulsion DE: Window frame PVC-U EU-27: Gypsum Plasterboard


Total (kg) 0.4408563 0.045101678 7.369848228 5.607699346 0.926922381 0.010940923 11.46213584 0.184189799

Input Flows 12.22586377 2.813018494 782.419875 1165.658507 68.79169806 0.148501253 748.7904544 0.184189799

Flows Resources 12.22586377 2.813018494 782.419875 1165.658507 68.79169806 0.148501253 748.7904544 0.184189799


Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




Output

Flows Flows -11.78500747 -2.767916816 -775.0500268 -1160.050808 -67.86477567 -0.137560331 -737.3283185

Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




Emissions to air 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emissions to fresh water -11.78500747 -2.767916816 -775.0500268 -1160.050808 -67.86477567 -0.137560331 -737.3283185





Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan

Total freshwater consumption Nylon Carpet Wool Carpet Vinyl Tile Linoleum Wallpaper Cork Vinyl Panel

Including rainwater 1m2 1m2 4.38kg 2.88kg 1kg 2kg 1kg

Swiss Ecoscarcity EU-25: Carpet EU-25: Carpet EU-25: Flooring PVC EU-25: Linoleum EU-27: Kraft paper EU-27: Resilient flooring RER: Polyvinyl chloride sheet

(GK 21, LC 1) (GK 21, LC 4) (VCT) EN 654 ERFMI flooring ERFMI (EN15804 A1-A3) PE Cork floor tiles EN 12104 (PVC) PlasticsEurope

Total (kg) 1.714882082 4.794131005 2.745477826 2.251690302 3.028440483 2.714223716 3.508551504

Input Flows 1.714882082 4.794131005 1.156901902 1.864163292 83.28148692 229.8563598 3.508551504

Flows Resources 1.714882082 4.794131005 1.156901902 1.864163292 83.28148692 229.8563598 3.508551504


Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




Output

Flows Flows 0 0 1.588575925 0.38752701 -80.25304643 -227.1421361 0

Resources 0 0 1.588575925 0.38752701 0 0 0




Emissions to air 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emissions to fresh water 0 0 0 0 -80.25304643 -227.1421361 0





75

Appendix B- RS Means Data

Material Unit Ref Labour Unit Ref Maintain. Type Unit Ref Demo. Unit Ref Install Unit Ref Remove Unit Ref

Paint (on Drywall) latex,2 coats, roller 0.13 sf pg358 0840 0.4 sf pg358 0840 0 only repaint sf N/A 0.53 sf Mat.+Lab. 0.01 hr/sf pg358 0840 0.01 hr/sf install

Wallpaper (on Drywall) avg cost paper 0.98 sf pg345 3900 0.6 sf pg345 3900 0.05 Protection sf pg347 0500 0.66 sf pg316 5040 0.015 hr/sf pg345 3900 0.017 hr/sf pg316 5040

Brick Veneer, red, closure 8.75 sf pg101 0020 6.55 sf pg101 0020 1.29 Wash sf pg95 0050 3.23 sf pg96 5000 0.174 hr/sf pg101 0020 0.057 hr/sf pg96 5000

Vinyl Panel vinyl sheets, 0.065" thick 4.1 sf pg338 8000 1.34 sf pg338 8000 0.22 Cleaning sf pg314 0500 2.26 sf pg36 0630 0.032 hr/sf pg338 8000 0.032 hr/sf pg36 0630

Ceramic Tile interior, thin set 2.26 sf pg 329 5400 3.17 sf pg 329 5400 0.57 Seal +Wash sf pg330 1310 0.98 sf pg316 3760 0.084 hr/sf pg 329 5400 0.027 hr/sf pg316 3760

Wood Veneer flexible, 1/32" thick 2.41 sf pg345 2100 3.18 sf pg345 2100 1.61 Refinish sf pg336 7500 2.26 sf pg36 0630 0.08 hr/sf pg345 2100 0.032 hr/sf pg36 0630

Linoleum sheet goods 3.59 sf pg338 5500 0.93 sf pg338 5500 0.22 Cleaning sf pg314 0500 0.42 sf pg315 0800 0.022 hr/sf pg338 5500 0.011 hr/sf pg315 0800

Vinyl Tile VCT, 1/16" thick 0.86 sf pg338 7000 0.67 sf pg338 7000 0.22 Cleaning sf pg314 0500 0.59 sf pg315 0900 0.016 hr/sf pg338 7000 0.016 hr/sf pg315 0900

Nylon Carpet 40oz, med traffic 56 S.y pg343 1100 4.47 S.y pg343 1100 0.22 Cleaning sf pg314 0500 0.29 sf pg314 0400 0.107 hr/S.y pg343 1100 0.08 hr/sf pg314 0400

Wool Carpet 40 oz, med traffic 131 S.y pg343 4110 4.47 S.y pg343 4110 0.22 Cleaning sf pg314 0500 0.29 sf pg314 0400 0.107 hr/S.y pg343 4110 0.08 hr/sf pg314 0400

Cork 1/8" thick, standard 7 sf pg338 2200 1.07 sf pg338 2200 0 dry clean N/A 0.42 sf pg315 0800 0.025 hr/sf pg338 2200 0.011 hr/sf pg315 0800

Hardwood fir, sanded, finished, 3.62 sf pg336 0020 2.43 sf pg336 0020 1.61 Refinish sf pg336 7500 1.13 sf pg315 3400 0.031 hr/sf pg336 0020 0.25 hr/sf pg315 3400

Ceramic Tile flazed, thin set 4.45 sf pg329 3255 2.01 sf pg329 3255 0.57 Seal +Wash sf pg330 1310 0.87 sf pg315 2000 0.053 hr/sf pg329 3255 0.024 hr/sf pg315 2000

Paint (on Concrete) latex, roll, 2 coat 0.32 sf pg357 0170 0.22 sf pg357 0170 0 only repaint N/A 0.53 sf Mat.+Lab. 0.005 hr/sf pg357 0170 0.01 hr/sf install

Stone Granite, Veneer, grey 26.5 sf pg112 0150 11.7 sf pg112 0150 0.57 Seal +Wash sf pg330 1310 0.94 sf pg315 2220 0.246 hr/sf pg112 0150 0.026 hr/sf pg315 2220

Exposed Concrete

Paint (on Drywall) Stud wall, 8' to 12', wood std 1.25 sf 2.77 sf 0.26 coat surface sf 0.51 sf 0.062 hr/sf 0.019 hr/sf

Acoustic Ceiling (Fibreglass) fibreglass board 2.37 sf pg332 0700 0.97 sf pg332 0700 0.13 primer sf pg332 3900 0.81 sf pg314 0240 0.021 hr/sf pg332 0700 0.22 hr/sf pg314 0240

Steel Plate (Aluminum) aluminum, painted 3.04 sf pg332 1300 4.89 sf pg332 1300 0.13 primer sf pg332 3900 0.81 sf pg314 0240 0.107 hr/sf pg332 1300 0.22 hr/sf pg314 0240

Paint (on Concrete) latex,2 coats, roller 0.13 sf pg358 0840 0.4 sf pg358 0840 0 only repaint sf N/A 0.53 sf Mat.+Lab. 0.01 hr/sf pg358 0840 0.01 hr/sf install

Exposed Concrete

Flo

ors

Cei

ling

Finish Material TYPE Life Cycle Cost Time

Wal

l Fin

ish

Aluminum single hung 2'x3' glazed 249 ea pg286 3100 82 ea pg286 3100 0.22 Cleaning sf pg314 0500 18.35 ea pg260 0200 1.6 hr/ea pg286 3100 0.5 hr/ea pg260 0200

Wood db hung, 2'x3', insu,glzd 210 ea pg288 0100 36.5 ea pg288 0100 0.22 Cleaning sf pg314 0500 13.35 ea pg260 2000 0.8 hr/ea pg288 0100 0.364 hr/ea pg 36 0812

PVC dbl hung, 2'x3' insu 291 ea pg294 0300 36.5 ea pg294 0300 0.22 Cleaning sf pg314 0500 22.5 ea pg260 1000 0.8 hr/ea pg294 0300 0.615 hr/ea pg 36 0812Win

do

w

Material TYPE Material Unit Ref Labour Unit Ref Maintain. Type Unit Ref Demo. Unit Ref Install Unit Ref Remove Unit Ref

Drywall Stud wall, 8' to 12', wood std 1.12 sf pg 316 0500 2.37 sf pg 316 0500 0.26 coat surface sf pg314 0500 0.51 ft2 pg 36 0910 0.052 hr/sf pg 316 0500 0.009 hr/sf pg 36 0910

Figure 11-RS Means 2014 Cost and Time Data

76

Appendix C- Industry Survey

Figure 12- Survey Disclosure

Name:

Employer:

Position:

Years of Employment:

General Information

The goal of my research is to educate facility end-users (occupants) on specific building materials and allow them to choose which material is best suited for their individual needs. The purpose of the research

is to evaluate the opinion of occupants; understand trends and factors that influence an occupant's material selection. The focus is on residential mid-rise concrete facilities.

The plan is to allow occupants to select the type of material they most prefer to be used for wall finishes, floor finishes and ceiling finishes. Prior to their selection, occupants will be educated on the

performance of each material with regards to its environmental impact, life cycle cost, installation time, constructability and operation. The life cycle software, GaBi, was utilized to achieve the environmental

impact for each material in terms of global warming potential, embodied energy and water consumption. RSMeans was used to obtain the life cycle cost and installation time for each material. The materials'

constructability and operation performance will be achieved by the results recieved from this survey with industry professionals.

Attached is a survey that requires you to score (to the best of your knowledge) each building material in its intended use over various categories. An explanation of each category and its scale is given. An

average score for each material will be calculated from the total completed surveys. Personal information will not be released.

Please fill in all fields below and in the attached document. Any questions can be directed to me (contact info below). Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Boris Isakov

BSc. (Hons)

MASc. CandidateCivil Engineering

University of TorontoM: 647-239-7400

E: [email protected]

77

Figure 13- Constructability Survey

Self Ease of Health and

Installation Installation Safety Risks

Paint (Latex)

Wallpaper

Brick

Vinyl Panel

Ceramic Tile

Wood Veneer

Linoleum

Vinyl Tile

Nylon Carpet

Wool Carpet

Cork

Hardwood

Ceramic Tile

Exposed Concrete X X X

Stone (Granite)

Acoustic Ceiling (Fibreglass)

Aluminum Ceiling

Drywall with Paint

Exposed Concrete X X X

Use Material

Wall Finish

Floor Finish

Ceiling Finish

The following relates to the Constructability of each material. Self Installation: Can the material be installed by the occupant without

professional expertise? Ease of Construction: Generally, how difficult is the material to install? Health and Safety Risks: How severe are the risks to the person installing the material? Please denote an “X” if a question does not apply or no answer can be given.

78

Figure 14- Immediate Operation Survey

Thermal Fire Sound

Insulation Performance Performance

Paint (Latex)

Wallpaper

Brick

Vinyl Panel

Ceramic Tile

Wood Veneer

Linoleum

Vinyl Tile

Nylon Carpet

Wool Carpet

Cork

Hardwood

Ceramic Tile

Exposed Concrete

Stone (Granite)


Aluminum Ceiling

Drywall with Paint

Exposed Concrete

Use Material

Wall Finish

Floor Finish

Ceiling Finish

The following relates to the performance of each material with regards to its impact on the Immediate Operation of the interior space. Thermal Insulation:

Does the material assist with thermal insulation and have an effect on heating/cooling? Fire Performance: How does the material respond to fire? Sound Performance: How well does the material absorb sound? Please denote an “X” if a question does not apply or no answer can be given.

79

Figure 15- Long-Term Operation Survey

Moisture

Impact Freedom from Maintenance Durability

Paint (Latex)

Wallpaper

Brick

Vinyl Panel

Ceramic Tile

Wood Veneer

Linoleum

Vinyl Tile

Nylon Carpet

Wool Carpet

Cork

Hardwood

Ceramic Tile

Exposed Concrete

Stone (Granite)


Aluminum Ceiling

Drywall with Paint

Exposed Concrete

Use Material

Wall Finish

Floor Finish

Ceiling Finish

The following relates to the performance of each material on the interior space over its Long Term Operation. Moisture Impact: How does the material perform

against water (spills) and humidity? Freedom from Maintenance: What level of mainteance/cleaning is needed for the material? Durability: How durable is the material over-time? Please denote an “X” if a question does not apply or no answer can be given.

80

Figure 16- Industry Survey Results

Paint (Latex) 3.90 3.80 3.10 0.10 1.60 0.40 3.60 4.80 4.60

Wallpaper 3.40 3.00 3.10 0.50 0.90 0.60 2.90 5.10 4.20

Brick 0.60 0.40 1.90 4.00 8.10 6.10 6.60 6.80 8.20

Vinyl Panel 1.50 1.60 2.40 2.60 2.40 3.60 6.80 6.10 6.20

Ceramic Tile 1.80 1.80 2.50 2.20 7.20 3.80 7.20 6.90 7.80

Wood Veneer 1.70 1.90 2.70 3.20 2.50 4.70 3.50 5.20 5.10

Linoleum 2.20 2.30 2.50 1.50 2.10 2.50 6.00 7.30 6.20

Vinyl Tile 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.70 6.50 6.90 6.50

Nylon Carpet 2.40 2.70 3.40 3.30 1.90 4.80 2.40 5.40 4.50

Wool Carpet 2.30 2.70 3.40 4.00 2.10 5.40 1.30 4.90 4.30

Cork 2.00 2.00 2.50 3.60 2.40 5.70 2.80 4.60 4.50

Hardwood 1.80 1.50 2.30 3.50 2.80 4.60 2.50 5.20 6.80

Ceramic Tile 1.80 1.60 2.40 2.70 7.40 3.70 7.60 6.90 7.70

Exposed Concrete 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.80 7.90 4.30 7.90 7.30 8.40

Stone (Granite) 1.20 1.10 2.10 2.80 8.40 4.30 7.20 7.40 8.50

Drywall with Paint 3.20 3.2 3.20 0.20 1.30 0.50 2.80 5.80 6.00

Acoustic Ceiling (Fibreglass) 0.80 1.20 2.60 3.30 4.80 7.10 2.50 5.80 6.80

Aluminum Ceiling 0.80 0.60 2.20 2.20 6.80 3.80 4.00 6.70 7.70

Exposed Concrete 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.80 8.40 4.30 7.20 7.40 8.50

Long-Term Operation Criteria

Moisture

Impact

Freedom from

Maintenance Durability

Floor Finish

Ceiling Finish

Self

Installation

Ease of

Installation

Health and

Safety Risks

Constructability Criteria

Use Material

Wall Finish

Immediate Operation Criteria

Thermal

Insulation

Fire

Performance

Sound

Performanc

81

Appendix D-Material Evaluation Tool Screenshots

Figure 17- Opening Page Screenshot

82

Figure 18- User Input of Importance Screenshot

83

Figure 19- Results Screenshot

84

Figure 20- Full Data Report: Wall Finish Screenshot

Figure 21- Full Data Report- Floor Finish Screenshot

85

Figure 22- Full Data Report- Ceiling Finish Screenshot

Figure 23- User Feedback Screenshot

86

Appendix E- Validation Questionnaire

A Knowledge-Based Evaluation Tool for User Education and Selection of

Interior Finish Materials

Marketing Questionnaire

1. Please respond to the following questions by checking off the appropriate box or writing

your answer in the space provided.

2. All information provided will be treated in confidentiality.

Section 1: Questions related to company details

1.1 Please indicate the company’s name and field of work:

______________________________________________________________________________

1.2 How many years has this company been involved in the construction industry?

______________________________________________________________________________

Section 2: Questions related to user engagement in construction projects

2.1 What level of priority is CURRENTLY given to engaging facility end-users into construction

projects?

High priority (7-9)

Moderate Priority (4-6)

Low Priority (1-3)

2.2 Do you believe that involving end-users into construction designs can have a positive impact

on the project?

Yes No

Why?_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

2.3 What are the current ways users are involved into construction projects? Are they adequate?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

87

2.4 In your opinion, what are the major barriers or issues affecting the involvement of end-users

into the construction process?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

2.5 Which statement(s) best describes the reasons for not involving end-users into construction

designs?

End-users are uneducated and unrealistic with regards to construction practices

It is difficult to satisfy the needs of end-users without compromising the project’s

integrity

The current construction industry lacks a system to properly communicate with end-users

2.6 On the following scale, please indicate what level of priority you believe SHOULD be placed

on involving end-users into construction projects.

______

Section 3- Questions related to building materials utilized in construction projects

This section will focus on interior finish materials used for walls, floors and ceilings in addition

to materials used for window framing.

3.1 Can you please indicate the general process currently used when selecting building materials

responsible for interior finishes.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

3.2 In your opinion, what level of knowledge does the common end-user have about the

environmental, economic and performance impact of building materials used for interior

finishes?

Strong (7-9)

Moderate (4-6)

Weak (1-3)

3.3 Do you believe that educating end-users of the impacts of various building materials can be

beneficial to a construction project?

Yes No

Why?_________________________________________________________________________

88

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

3.4 Would allowing users to select their preference of interior finish material drastically impact

the integrity of the project?

Yes No

Why?_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Section 4- Questions related to the material evaluation tool

This section relates to the proposed material evaluation tool. The evaluation tool works to

educate end-users on the environmental, economic and performance impacts of various

materials used for interior finishing. The evaluation tool also allows end-users to select which

material they most prefer.

4.1 How helpful would the evaluation tool be for potential facility end-users on a scale from 0-

10?

______

Why?_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

4.2 How important do you believe the evaluation tool can be within the construction industry?

______

Why?_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

4.3 Based on the following list of considered materials, would you suggest any materials to

add/remove?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

89

Wall Finish Floor Finish Ceiling Finish

Paint (on Drywall) Linoleum Drywall with Paint

Wallpaper (on Drywall) Vinyl Tile Acoustic Ceiling (Fibreglass)

Brick Veneer Nylon Carpet Aluminum Ceiling

Vinyl Panel Wool Carpet Exposed Concrete

Ceramic Tile Cork

Wood Veneer Hardwood

Ceramic Tile

Exposed Concrete

Stone

4.4 Based on the criteria in which materials are evaluated, would you suggest any items to

add/remove?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Requirement Characteristic Add/Remove


Global Warming Potential

Embodied Energy

Water Consumption

Life Cycle Cost

Material Cost

Labour Cost

Maintenance Cost

Demolition Cost

Time

Installation Time

Removal Time

Life Span

Constructability

Self-Installation

Ease of Installation

Health and Safety Risks


Thermal Insulation

Fire Performance

Sound Performance


Moisture Resistance

Freedom from Maintenance

Durability

90

4.5 Can you please provide a base ranking to the importance of each evaluation criteria?

Criteria Importance Global Warming Potential Embodied Energy Water Consumption Material Cost Labour Cost Maintenance Cost Demolition Cost Installation Time Removal Time Life Span Self-Installation Ease of Installation Health and Safety Risks Thermal Insulation Fire Performance Sound Performance Moisture Resistance Freedom from Maintenance Durability

4.6 In your opinion, can you see this evaluation tool implemented in the design of construction

projects?

Yes No

Why?_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

4.7 Do you have any other inquiries about the proposed evaluation tool, its function or purpose?

Yes No

Why?_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Section 5: General Notes

91

7.0 References

Abdul-Rahman et al. (1999). Quality function deployment in construction design: application in

low-cost housing design. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,

591-605.

Ahmed et al. (2003). Use of Quality Function Deployment in Civil Engineering Capital Project

Planning. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 358-368.

Airbus. (2014). Future by Airbus. Retrieved May 2014, from Airbus:

http://www.airbus.com/innovation/future-by-airbus/

Aktas, C., & Bilec, M. (2012). Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results. The

International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 337-349.

Armstrong. (2012). Optima Ceiling Panels- High Performance Fibreglass. Minneapolis: ICC

Evaluation Service.

Azhar, S. (2011). Building Information Modeling (BIM): Trends, Benefits, Risks, and

Challenges for the AEC Industry. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 241-252.

BEES. (2005). Product List. Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability.

Beguin, P. (2007). Innovation and socio-cognitive framework of interaction designers operators:

a developmental approach. Human Work, 369-390.

Bergman et al. (2003). Carbon Impacts of Wood Products. Greeneville, TN: University of

Tennessee Institute of Agriculture.

Biemans, W. G., & Brand, M. (1995). Reverse Marketing: Synergy of Purchasing and

Relationaship Marketing. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials

Management, 28-37.

Blenkhorn, D. L. (1991). How reverse marketing changes buyer—seller roles. Industrial

Marketing Management, 185-191.

Bode, J., & Fung, R. (1998). Cost Engineering with Quality Function Deployment. Computers &

Industrial Engineering, 587-590.

Bolar et al. (2014). Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems: QFD-Based Approach. Journal

of Infrastructure Systems.

Bovea, M., & Wang, B. (2007). Redesign Methodology For Developing Environmentally

Conscious Products. International Journal of Production Research, 4057-4072.

92

Burdge, R., & Vanclay, F. (1996). Social Impact Assessment: A contribution to the state of the

art series. Impact Assessment, 59-86.

Cannon Design. (2013). Embodied Energy of Building Materials. Toronto: Cannon Design.

Chan, L.-K. (2005). A systematic approach to quality function deployment with a full illustrative

example. Omega, 119-139.

Chau et al. (2012). Assessment of CO2 emissions reduction in high-rise concrete office buildings

using different material use options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 22-34.

Chicago Architectural Club. (2013). 2013 Burnham Prize. Retrieved May 2014, from Chicago

Architectural Club: http://chicagoarchitecturalclub.org/Competition-2013-Burnham-Prize

Christiansson et al, P. (2008). User Driven Innovation in the Building Process. TSINGHUA

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 248-254.

Clarke, D. (2013). Concrete slab floors. Australlia: Australlian Government.

Cohen, L. (1995). Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You. Reading,

Massachusetts: Corporate and Professional Publishing Group.

Delgado-Hernandez et al. (2007). Quality function deployment in construction. Construction

Management and Economics, 597-609.

Dikmen et al. (2005). Strategic use of quality function deployment (QFD) in the construction

industry. Building and Environment, 245-255.

Dong et al. (2003). Integration of Green Quality Function Deployment and Fuzzy Multi-

Attribute Utility Theory-Based Cost Estimation for Environmentally Conscious Product

Development. International Journal of Environmentally Conscious Design and

Manufacturing, 12-28.

Fay et al. (2000). Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings: a case study. Building Research &

Information, 31-41.

Fowler, A. F. (2006). Efficiency versus effectiveness in construction supply chains: the dangers

of “lean”. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 283 - 287.

Gargione, L. (1999). Using Quality Function Deployment (QFD) in the Design Phase of an

Apartment Construction Project. Berkeley, California: University of California.

Glueck, M. G. (2009). Tile is the Natural Choice. Clemson, SC: The Council of North America

Inc.

93

Gonzalez, M., & Navarro, J. (2006). Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the

construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of three houses

of low environmental impact. Building and Environment, 902-909.

Hauser, J., & Clausing, D. (1988). The House of Quality. Harvard Business Review.

Hwang, C., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making-methods and applications: A

state-of-the-art survey. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Ibn-Homaid, N. (2002). A comarative evaluation of construction and manufacturing materials

management. Project Management, 263-270.

Institute for Steel Development and Growth. (1997). Institute for Steel Development and Growth.

Retrieved May 2014, from Multi-Storey Buildings: http://www.steel-

insdag.org/teachingmaterial/chapter37.pdf

Jonsson et al. (1997). Life cycle assessment of flooring materials: Case study. Building and

Environment, 245-255.

Juan et al. (2010). Optimal decision making on urban renewal projects. Management Decision,

207-224.

Kamara et al. (1999). Client Requirements Processing in Construction: A New Approach Using

QFD. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 8-15.

Kaya. (2004). Relating building attributes to end user's needs: “the owners-designers-end users”

equation. Facilities, 247-252.

Kaya, S. (2004). Relating building attributes to end user's needs: “the owners-designers-end

users” equation. Facilities, 247-252.

Kaya, S. (2004). Relating building attributes to end user's needs: “the owners-designers-end

users” equation. Facilities, 247-252.

Keoleian et al. (2000). Life-Cycle Energy, Costs, and Strategies for Improving a Single-Family

House. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 135-156.

Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour &

Information Technology, 1-16.

Lackney, J., & Zajfen, P. (2005). Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Public Libraries: Lessons

Learned from Three Case Studies. Library Leadership and Management, 16-25.

Level. (2013). Life Cycle Assessment- Material Use. Judgeford, New Zealand: Branz.

94

Loup-Escande, E., Burkhardt, J.-M., Christmann, O., & Richir, S. (2014). Needs’ elaboration

between users, designers and project leaders: Analysis of a design process of a virtual

reality-based software. Information and Software Technology, 1049-1061.

Mahmoud, M. A.-R., Aref, M., & Al-Hammad, A. (1996). An Expert System for Evaluation and

Selection of Floor Finishing Materials. Expert Systems with Applications, 281-303.

Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. New York: John Wiley and

Sons.

Mansour, R., & Weidner, M. (2002). Integrating Design for Environment (DfE) Impact Matrix

into Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Process. The Journal of Sustainable Product

Design, 29-41.

McDermott, A. (2014). Wallpapers. Journal of Architectural Conservation, 11-27.

McGovern, G. (2013). The growth of Reverse Marketing. New Thinking.

Montibeller, G., & Franco, A. (2010). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Strategic Decision

Making. In C. Zopoundis, & C. Pardalos, Handbook of Multicriteria Analysis (pp. 25-

48). Berlin: Springer.

Naoum, D. S. (2004). Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Students. Oxford:

Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

National Association of Home Builders. (2007). Life Expectancy of Housing Components –

NAHB. Bank of America Home Equity.

Nebel et al. (2006). Life Cycle Assessment of Wood Floor Coverings. The International Journal

of Life Cycle Assessment, 172-182.

Nicoletti et al. (2002). Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of flooring materials: ceramic vs

marble tiles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283-296.

Nordby et al. (2009). Criteria for salvageability: the reuse of bricks. Building Research &

Information, 55-67.

NRMCA. (2012). Concrete CO2 Fact Sheet. Silver Spring, MD: National Ready Mixed

Concrete Association.

Oakland, J., & Marosszeky, M. (2006). Total Quality in the Construction Supply Chain. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Papadopoulos, A., & Giama, E. (2007). Environmental performance evaluation of thermal

insulation materials and its impact on the building. Building and Environment, 2178-

2187.

95

Paulsen, J., & Sposto, R. (2013). A life cycle energy analysis of social housing in Brazil: Case

study for the program “MY HOUSE MY LIFE”. Energy and Buildings, 95-102.

Pemsel et al. (2010). Managing the needs of end-users in the design and delivery of construction

projects. Facilities, 17-30.

Peterson, A. K., & Solberg, B. (2004). Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs over the Life Cycle

of Wood and Alternative Flooring Materials. Climatic Change, 143-167.

Pheng, L., & Yeap, L. (2001). Quality Function Deployment in Design/Build Projects. Journal of

Architectural Engineering, 30-39.

Porter's Paints. (2009). Poter's Wallpaper. Australlia: Porters Paints.

Potting, J., & Blok, K. (1995). Life-cycle assessment of four types of floor covering. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 201-213.

Prasad, K., & Chakraborty, S. (2013). A quality function deployment-based model for materials

selection. Materials and Design, 525-535.

Pred Isakov MSc, P. C. (2014, July 6). Performance of Building Materials. (B. Isakov,

Interviewer)

Preiser, W. (1995). Post-occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better. Facilities,

19-28.

Public Interest. (2014, May 30). About Public Interest. Retrieved from Regent Park:

http://www.publicinterest.ca/portfolio/20

Rahman, S., Odeyinka, H., Perera, S., & Bi, Y. (2012). Product-cost modelling approach for the

development of a decision support system for optimal roofing material selection. Expert

Systems with Applications, 6857-6871.

Rosenthal, L., & Listokin, D. (2009). New Or Rehab: Striking A New Balance Under

California's Affordable Housing Standards. Berkeley: Berkeley Program on Housing and

Urban Policy.

RS Means. (2009). Building Construction Cost Data . Kingston, MA: RS Means Company.

Saadah, Y., & AbuHijleh, B. (2012). Decreasing CO2 Emissions and Embodied Energy during

the Construction Phase Using Sustainable Building Materials. International Journal of

Sustainable Building, 115-120.

Sakao, T. (2008). Quality engineering for early stage of environmentally conscious design. The

TQM Journal, 182-193.

96

Schaaf, A. (2007). Economic Feasibility Analysis for Urban Renewal Housing. Journal of the

American Institute of Planners, 399-404.

Scheuer et al. (2003). Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university

building: modeling challenges and design implications. Energy and Buildings, 1049-

1064.

Solo-Gabriele et al. (2004). Environmental Impacts of CCA-Treated Wood Within Florida, USA

. Environmental Impacts of Preservative-Treated Wood, 57-70.

Tiranasar, N. (2007). Application of total quality methods to improve efficiency and increase

flexibility in automotive technology.

Treloar et al. (2001). Building materials selection: greenhouse strategies for built facilities.

Facilities, 139-150.

U.Pennsylvania. (2003). A local Guide to Preservation.

Vinyl Institute. (2005). Environmental Profile: Vinyl Wall Covering . Virginia: Vinyl Institute.

Vischer, J. (1995). Strategic Work-Space Planning. MIT Sloan Management Review.

Wolfgang, P. (1995). Post-occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better. Facilities,

19-28.

Wong, J., & Li, H. (2008). Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria

analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Building and Environment, 108-

125.

Yan et al. (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions in building construction: A case study of One

Peking. Building and Environment, 949-955.

Yoahnis, Y., & Norton, B. (2002). Life-cycle operational and embodied energy for a generic

single-storey office building in the UK. Energy, 77-92.

Zhang et al. (2007). QFD-Based Decision-Making Method on Urban Public Car Park Location.

International Conference on Transportation Engineering, 2771-2776.

Zhang, Y., & Barrett, P. (2010). Findings from a post-occupancy evaluation in the UK primary

schools sector. Facilities, 641-656.

developing a knowledge-based evaluation tool to support ... · developing a knowledge-based...

Documents